If not for the courts the country would be unrecognizable.

[berg80]

Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment to Jenner & Block, finding President Trump’s executive order against it unlawful and declaring it null and void.

This is remarkably strong language from a George W. Bush appointee who served on Special Counsel Ken Starr’s team:

This case arises from one of a series of executive orders targeting law firms that, in one way or another, did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy. Like the others in the series, this order—which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block—makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work—and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward—violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy. This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.
Click to expand...

JUST IN: Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

Taken in their entirety, if trump's EO's had been enacted without challenge, which would only encourage him to enact more, one wonders how long it would be before he suspended upcoming elections for national office.

 

[Blackrook]

It would be nice if the story explained the ruling or what it was based on. But we've come to expect shabby journalism when it comes to covering Trump.

 

[Darkwind]

The country has been unrecognizable since the election of Barak Obama.

 

[wamose]

From my viewpoint, courts and judges protect the rich and powerful, politicians and lawyers, with decisions being made based on financial considerations more often than legal ones.

 

[the watcher]

If not for the courts the country would be unrecognizable.​

It is unrecognizable to anyone over 60 years old.

 

[berg80]

The country has been unrecognizable since the election of Barak Obama.

Didn't like a black guy in the Oval, ay? Get over it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment to Jenner & Block, finding President Trump’s executive order against it unlawful and declaring it null and void.

This is remarkably strong language from a George W. Bush appointee who served on Special Counsel Ken Starr’s team:

JUST IN: Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

Taken in their entirety, if trump's EO's had been enacted without challenge, which would only encourage him to enact more, one wonders how long it would be before he suspended upcoming elections for national office.

Rulings against Trump are meaningless when Trump ignores the courts and continues to pursue his illegal, un-Constitutional agenda.

America already looks like a banana republic dictatorship the consequence of Trump.

 

[berg80]

If not for the courts the country would be unrecognizable.​

It is unrecognizable to anyone over 60 years old.

True. I never thought the lawlessness and bigotry of trumpery would be tolerated here.

 

[berg80]

It would be nice if the story explained the ruling or what it was based on. But we've come to expect shabby journalism when it comes to covering Trump.

It provided a link to the ruling.

In our constitutional order, few stars are as fixed as the principle that no official “can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S.624, 642 (1943). And in our constitutional order, few actors are as central to fixing that star as lawyers. This case arises from one of a series of executive orders targeting law firms that, in one way or another, did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy. Like the others in the series, this order—which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block—makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work—and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward—violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278932/gov.uscourts.dcd.278932.138.0_6.pdf

 

[berg80]

From my viewpoint, courts and judges protect the rich and powerful, politicians and lawyers, with decisions being made based on financial considerations more often than legal ones.

I don't think your viewpoint is supported by the evidence.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Didn't like a black guy in the Oval, ay? Get over it.

Libs gotta have room to destroy......

 

[The Duke]

This is a big to-do over nothing.
The government doesn't have to do business with them or give them access to classified information.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This is a big to-do over nothing.
The government doesn't have to do business with them or give them access to classified information.

Not true​

1. The judge explains that targeting law firms because of their advocacy or clients is a First Amendment violation:​

"Retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work ... violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not 'use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.'"

That directly rebuts the idea that the government can simply refuse to do business based on political disagreement. Even if access to federal contracts or security clearance isn’t a right in itself, denial based on viewpoint is unconstitutional.

---

2. The court’s language makes it clear:​

"...the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy..."

This protects:

• Client advocacy
• Attorney independence
• Judicial integrity

If the government can retaliate against law firms for the legal arguments they advance or the clients they defend, it undermines both the justice system and constitutional checks on executive power.

---

3. Even if a firm isn’t outright banned or blacklisted, targeting them with executive orders has a chilling effect:​

"This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like..."

That’s the danger. Not just punishment, but creating an environment where firms are afraid to represent controversial or unpopular clients. That’s incompatible with a functioning constitutional democracy.

---

In Summary:​

“The government absolutely does not have the right to withhold contracts or deny clearances simply because it disapproves of a law firm’s clients or advocacy. Courts have made clear that doing so is a First Amendment violation — it punishes disfavored expression using the power of the state. In fact, Judge Bates called it doubly unconstitutional. If this kind of retaliation were allowed, it would silence legal dissent and destroy the independence of the courts.”

 

[Darkwind]

Didn't like a black guy in the Oval, ay? Get over it.

Had nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his anti-Constitutional policies.

 

[22lcidw]

Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment to Jenner & Block, finding President Trump’s executive order against it unlawful and declaring it null and void.

This is remarkably strong language from a George W. Bush appointee who served on Special Counsel Ken Starr’s team:

JUST IN: Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

Taken in their entirety, if trump's EO's had been enacted without challenge, which would only encourage him to enact more, one wonders how long it would be before he suspended upcoming elections for national office.

It's like watching FOX with a percentage of shills and the force Progressive they use on many programs. Fox has some good people. It is a shame.

 

[BackAgain]

Didn't like a black guy in the Oval, ay? Get over it.

You’re the shitbag who brought up race. People can find Obumbler an awful President who helped cause major damage to America without even contemplating his race.

But that’s all you can do.

You are way too obvious in your propaganda efforts.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment to Jenner & Block, finding President Trump’s executive order against it unlawful and declaring it null and void.

This is remarkably strong language from a George W. Bush appointee who served on Special Counsel Ken Starr’s team:

JUST IN: Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

Taken in their entirety, if trump's EO's had been enacted without challenge, which would only encourage him to enact more, one wonders how long it would be before he suspended upcoming elections for national office.

Because of leftism the courts are unrecognizable.

 

[blackhawk]

Thread rated.
TDSSSDD.

 

[Crepitus]

It would be nice if the story explained the ruling or what it was based on. But we've come to expect shabby journalism when it comes to covering Trump.

It's linked in the piece.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment to Jenner & Block, finding President Trump’s executive order against it unlawful and declaring it null and void.

This is remarkably strong language from a George W. Bush appointee who served on Special Counsel Ken Starr’s team:

JUST IN: Judge Strikes Down Another Big Law EO​

U.S. District Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C. just awarded summary judgment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

Taken in their entirety, if trump's EO's had been enacted without challenge, which would only encourage him to enact more, one wonders how long it would be before he suspended upcoming elections for national office.

From what ?