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

[The Grand Nudger]

Not only that, there was no means by which for acosta or cnn to appeal the nonexistent process. We are a nation of laws...our rights are not conferred by building favor with the king, nor can they be stripped on account of his displeasure.

[Angrboda]

I think that it is a fairly liberal interpretation of the constitution, to say that freedom of speech and freedom of the press where violated here.  They are not limiting at all, what Acosta says or writes about.  What they are limiting is his access to the White house.   An individuals access at that.   They are not saying that CNN is not allowed, or that any who ask hard questions are not allowed.   This was one individual.  I can also understand, because, I think that Acosta is not interested in answers at all, but mostly grandstands, and talks to hear his own voice. I can't just demand a pass, and claim that these rights have been violated, because they don't give it to me.   I don't think that Alex Jones should be given a press pass, and it's likely that many who are complaining about this, would complain about that, if it was.

I think that who the White House grants access is up to them.   It's a privilege, not a right.  It may raise some questions if the scope of this was broader, and almost all reporters who disagreed with the President where shut out, but that is not the case.   It's only one individual.

With that being said;  I do think that some of the statements about Acosta placing his hands on the intern where both overstated and overblown.  Watching the video with a little bit charity, his pushing her away, could easily be explained as reactionary and was by no means violent (which I think, if you only listened to some of the commentary; one might think, that it was a bigger deal than what it was).  I think that the White House has a right to not allow his aggressive and self centered behavior.  Which is my opinion anyway.  However I think this was the straw that broke the camels back, not single incident which merited such and is reported by some.

I'm not sure what the focus of your question is. I haven't read widely on the matter, including the specifics of the judge's opinion, but my understanding is that he did not rule on that constitutional issue. Am I wrong or are you instead posing a rather vaguely defined hypothetical?

[RoadRunner79]

The 5th amendment covers the following: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

I guess the judge focused on the "liberty" and "without due process of law". The point was his press pass was taken for no good reason. That deprives him of his ability to do his job, ergo depriving him of liberty.

As I said, I think that is a fairly liberal interpretation with no regard for the spirit in which the amendment it is written.  I don't see white house press conference as a liberty, but a privilege.  As I had asked, if I was invited to the white house, and then I said or did something which then proceeded with them asking me to leave; would that really be denying me liberty as afforded by the constitution?  I also do not think that if I asked for a press pass, because I am reporting about it here, that I am being denied my liberty if I am denied that pass.  I don't see where due process (in the context of the amendment)  comes into it.   If you want to get that liberal in interpretation, then Acosta was denying that intern from doing her job, by pushing her away.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The judge himself noted that the White House needed some clear criteria for determining whether to revoke someone's press credentials,

In order for a privilege to be unfairly revoked, it must first be fairly granted. If CNN is claiming the Acosta was not given due process before being banned, then presumably there was some legal process by which he gained access. I am not aware of any although surely there must be. That's the part no one is talking about and about which I am genuinely curious.

My question is basically by what criteria are people given press "credentials"? Reporters are not licensed professionals like doctors, lawyers or architects. My license required a 5-year degree, 2 years of apprenticeship, and passing a battery of 9 tests, one of which lasted 12-hours. Likewise getting a journalism degree is not nearly as impressive as getting one in engineering or materials science.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that it is a fairly liberal interpretation of the constitution, to say that freedom of speech and freedom of the press where violated here.  They are not limiting at all, what Acosta says or writes about.  What they are limiting is his access to the White house.   An individuals access at that.   They are not saying that CNN is not allowed, or that any who ask hard questions are not allowed.   This was one individual.  I can also understand, because, I think that Acosta is not interested in answers at all, but mostly grandstands, and talks to hear his own voice. I can't just demand a pass, and claim that these rights have been violated, because they don't give it to me.   I don't think that Alex Jones should be given a press pass, and it's likely that many who are complaining about this, would complain about that, if it was.

I think that who the White House grants access is up to them.   It's a privilege, not a right.  It may raise some questions if the scope of this was broader, and almost all reporters who disagreed with the President where shut out, but that is not the case.   It's only one individual.

With that being said;  I do think that some of the statements about Acosta placing his hands on the intern where both overstated and overblown.  Watching the video with a little bit charity, his pushing her away, could easily be explained as reactionary and was by no means violent (which I think, if you only listened to some of the commentary; one might think, that it was a bigger deal than what it was).  I think that the White House has a right to not allow his aggressive and self centered behavior.  Which is my opinion anyway.  However I think this was the straw that broke the camels back, not single incident which merited such and is reported by some.

I'm not sure what the focus of your question is.  I haven't read widely on the matter, including the specifics of the judge's opinion, but my understanding is that he did not rule on that constitutional issue.  Am I wrong or are you instead posing a rather vaguely defined hypothetical?

I have heard some things said, but haven't read it either.  I am going off of what people have said here and what I have heard.   If there is good reason that the constitution applies in this matter, then I'm happy to hear it.  I don't see how it does, or why the 5th or 1st amendments are being brought up.

[The Grand Nudger]

The judge himself noted that the White House needed some clear criteria for determining whether to revoke someone's press credentials,

In order for a privilege to be unfairly revoked, it must first be fairly granted. If CNN is claiming 

CNN, is not.  A federal judge, appointed by trump, has decided it to be so.  There may be further abuses, such as abrogation of 1st amendment rights..arguments will continue.

[Tiberius]

The 5th amendment covers the following: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

I guess the judge focused on the "liberty" and "without due process of law". The point was his press pass was taken for no good reason. That deprives him of his ability to do his job, ergo depriving him of liberty.

As I said, I think that is a fairly liberal interpretation with no regard for the spirit in which the amendment it is written.  I don't see white house press conference as a liberty, but a privilege.  As I had asked, if I was invited to the white house, and then I said or did something which then proceeded with them asking me to leave; would that really be denying me liberty as afforded by the constitution?  I also do not think that if I asked for a press pass, because I am reporting about it here, that I am being denied my liberty if I am denied that pass.  I don't see where due process (in the context of the amendment)  comes into it.   If you want to get that liberal in interpretation, then Acosta was denying that intern from doing her job, by pushing her away.

Well firstly Acosta wasn’t asked to leave, he was told to put down the mic. This was, I believe, after he’d started asking his second question. He was ultimately allowed to ask the second question. Only afterwards were his credentials taken away. It was hinted that the reasoning wasn’t that he refused to put down the mic, but that he put his hands on a female intern, which was dubious at best. Anyone watching the video can see that the intern was reaching for the mic and the contact was incidental.

Secondly, He didn’t ask Trump for a press pass, he’s had one for years. I’m not saying that denying a press pass would be unconstitutional, however taking one away for no good reason would be, which is what the judge found.

Finally, the 5th amendment has to do with actions performed by the government, Acosta is not a member of the government so even if he prevented the intern from doing her job, it’s not covered by the 5th. That’s why this forum can ban people from swearing in this thread but not violate the 1st amendment freedom of speech.

[LadyForCamus]

[Kitan Etos]

Since Trump never really says anything worthwhile, he should be interrupted all the time.

[RoadRunner79]

As I said, I think that is a fairly liberal interpretation with no regard for the spirit in which the amendment it is written.  I don't see white house press conference as a liberty, but a privilege.  As I had asked, if I was invited to the white house, and then I said or did something which then proceeded with them asking me to leave; would that really be denying me liberty as afforded by the constitution?  I also do not think that if I asked for a press pass, because I am reporting about it here, that I am being denied my liberty if I am denied that pass.  I don't see where due process (in the context of the amendment)  comes into it.   If you want to get that liberal in interpretation, then Acosta was denying that intern from doing her job, by pushing her away.

Well firstly Acosta wasn’t asked to leave, he was told to put down the mic. This was, I believe, after he’d started asking his second question. He was ultimately allowed to ask the second question. Only afterwards were his credentials taken away. It was hinted that the reasoning wasn’t that he refused to put down the mic, but that he put his hands on a female intern, which was dubious at best. Anyone watching the video can see that the intern was reaching for the mic and the contact was incidental.

Secondly, He didn’t ask Trump for a press pass, he’s had one for years. I’m not saying that denying a press pass would be unconstitutional, however taking one away for no good reason would be, which is what the judge found.

Finally, the 5th amendment has to do with actions performed by the government, Acosta is not a member of the government so even if he prevented the intern from doing her job, it’s not covered by the 5th. That’s why this forum can ban people from swearing in this thread but not violate the 1st amendment freedom of speech.

The fifth amendment as I read it, has to do with law and punishment.   It was established as a way to prevent corrupt government from persecuting and wrongfully attacking people through the law, without just cause.  The closest thing there is the clause "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" unless you have something else in mind.   And here, I find that due process of the law, is just being abbreviated to due process.  It's not a matter of law, but the White House revoking a privilege to an individual.  They don't need to involve the courts to do so.  

I also disagree, that it was just incidental contact with the female intern, as can be seen by her reaction.  He was clearly pushing her away from getting the microphone (whether intentional or reactionary)   And again, I agree, that this contact has been overblown by some.   Was he denying her liberty by preventing her from doing her job?   I think that overstating the contact made, is as much a misrepresentation as overblowing this, to make it as the administration is trying to take away constitutional rights of this individual and almost as ridiculous as saying they are denying freedom of the press, and freedom of speech (as was included in their original suit and is being touted by the ACLU). 

Such liberal interpretation of the constitution can lead to much of what it was trying to prevent, and can be made to say most anything.  I can understand disagreement with the action, and perhaps it was a rash decision and not the best course of action. However trying to make it a constitutional rights issue, is stretching things pretty thin.  It will be interesting to see the Presidents rules of decorum in the future and how this all plays out, for sure.