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

[Angrboda]

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.

You haven't discussed things, simply asserted a political opinion. If you had done otherwise I might be more sympathetic.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

You haven't discussed things, simply asserted a political opinion.  If you had done otherwise I might be more sympathetic.

I've given reasons for my opinion..... People have ignored what the law is in this case for due process under the law.  The have not addressed, that this press pass is a special privilege given to some, and not a right given to all.  And I haven't seen anyone reply why the obvious context of criminal matters in the clauses of the 5th amendment should be applied or ignored here.  And I haven't been talking about politics at all (perhaps that is more of a reason for yourself).   If you only want to discuss me, and what you falsely attribute to me, things that I didn't say; then forgive me, but I'm more interested in discussing the ideas and the reasoning, and whether the decision is right or wrong.  I'm going to respectfully bow out, if where not going to talk about the topic at hand, and you are going to unjustifiably and incorrectly assert my position for me.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is the law in this case, for due process under law?  If there is one, the administrations lawyers failed to present it.

[RoadRunner79]

What is the law in this case, for due process under law?  If there is one, the administrations lawyers failed to present it.

You tell me, I’m not the one arguing that due process under the law was not applied. I don’t think it is a matter of law to begin with.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was the administrations lawyers failure to describe any process whatsoever that lead to such a ruling.  Similar to the fact that there was no indication as to how one might appeal to the decision of that nonexistent process, opening them up to first amendment issues under incorporation doctrine - arguments for which will be heard in a few days.

All of this, from the initial revocation to the poor showing in court...self inflicted wounds.

[Angrboda]

In or out, in or out. Make up your mind. But this threatening to leave and then staying is just passive-aggressive nonsense and violates the spirit of this forum if not the letter.

[RoadRunner79]

It was the administrations lawyers failure to describe any process whatsoever that lead to such a ruling.  Similar to the fact that there was no indication as to how one might appeal to the decision of that nonexistent process, opening them up to first amendment issues under incorporation doctrine - arguments for which will be heard in a few days.

All of this, from the initial revocation to the poor showing in court...self inflicted wounds.

So we just cut the quote in half, and ignore the part that goes against are argument? How do you put this in context of the other clauses which are clearly concerning criminal charges?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure why you think anything is being cut in half?  It's referred to as due process for convenience sake.  Any reference of due process is still an invocation of that same right, which...in this case, the administration both trampled on, and inexplicably failed to mount any defense against.

Perhaps they expected the judge to be friendlier? However that happened, I hope that they're more prepared to respond to the 1st amendment challenge. They'll be dealing with a compound complaint. Both an issue of free press and right of petition.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm not sure why you think anything is being cut in half?  It's referred to as due process for convenience sake.  Any reference of due process is still an invocation of that same right, which...in this case, the administration both trampled on, and inexplicably failed to mount any defense against.

Perhaps they expected the judge to be friendlier? However that happened, I hope that they're more prepared to respond to the 1st amendment challenge. They'll be dealing with a compound complaint. Both an issue of free press and right of petition.

So you think that freedom of speech and freedom of the press equates to a White House press pass? Does everyone have this right, or just a privelesge few?

[Foxaèr]

I think if the reporter did not have the right to be there, he wouldn't have been there in the first place. But that's just me using reason, go figure.