Federal Judge Orders White House To Temporarily Restore Press Access To Jim Acosta

[RoadRunner79]

As I explained previously I think it is a broad and non literal interpretation of the constitution, that is not taking a literal approach to the context and intent of the authors. It is prooftexting (note the ommision of under the law from quotes) and therefore is trying to appeal to it as an authority, but not using the original intent or meaning of the writings. If you think that it is applicable, then please explain what due process under the law means in this context. Specifically the word law.  I think that being given special access to the White House is a priveledge and not part of the rights given to all by the constitution.

I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, so in this case I am deferring to the authority and expertise of the judge in this matter that there exists a clear constitutional issue involved. As John has noted, while that decision is not necessarily final, it is where the ball rests at the moment. What authority or expertise are you drawing upon to say that it isn't an appropriate interpretation of the constitution? As to whether it is a broad or narrow ruling, reflective of originalist intentions or not, that seems to be little more than an expression of what you want the law to be rather than an actual expression of the way the law is or should necessarily be. It's nothing more than an arbitrary wish, until, and unless, you can substantiate it as anything more than that. This isn't a discussion about whose politics are preferable to whose, but about what the law does or does not state in the matter. So far all I've gotten from you is a rather biased and I presume inexpert opinion on the matter. As long as you are simply saying that you don't like things which don't cotton to your values and priorities regarding jurisprudence, I don't particularly care. I'm looking for a justified opinion here, and so far I haven't seen that from you.

So just an appeal to authority with no thoughts of your own on the matter? This has nothing to do with politics, and if you have nothing more than judge said so... I find no reason to change my mind. While I respect the judges authority, without other reason, I think he is out of line in voting the 5th amendment. While I don’t endorse uninformed opinions, I think that we can reasonably discuss things, even when not an expert on the matter.