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

[The Grand Nudger]

It would seem like a glaring omission on account of the administrations representation, if any process had been followed, not to lay that out.  I'd like to believe that we have better lawyers representing our administration...but I guess you never know.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If there is not process then are my 5th amendment rights being violated if I were prevented from participating in the press conference?

What? There is a process for applying and being approved for a press pass. There probably is one for removing a press pass too. The problem isn't with the process, it's with the apparent fact that the process either wasn't followed or it was unfairly applied. That's what due process is about.

I agree. It's just that no one is talking about what it is. That seems like a pretty important consideration. If the granting of passes is relatively arbitrary then the removal of them could be just as arbitrary. On the other hand, if the process is very strict, then presumably pulling them would be as well. Or not. My state is an "at will" employment state. I could be fired for no reason at all provided it wasn't based on racism, sexism, or something like that. I know a guy that was fired for making popcorn in the microwave. The boss hates the smell and so 'poof' that guy was gone.

[The Grand Nudger]

The problem was that the administrations own lawyers didn't talk about what it was...because whatever process that was, they didn't follow it, and had no explanation for who even made the decision to revoke the pass.  

Pretty cut and dry.

Private business can do all sorts of stuff the government cant do.

[RoadRunner79]

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. 

Liberal (adj): Any law, court ruling, or custom that makes you uncomfortable.

Conservative (adj): Anything that gives you the warm and fuzzy that nothing will ever, EVER change.

Boru

This doesn’t seem like the kind of rhetoric and nonsense that makes for a civil discussion.

---

Just as a matter of law, the executive branch is the law, so arguing that the executive branch's actions aren't a matter of law because they aren't an act of congress seems rather ill conceived.

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 resent your characterizing it as a liberal issue. It is not. Moreover I find your slippery slope argument without merit. That you may see 'liberal' concerns as threatening the end of civilization as we know it is neither reasonable nor particularly persuasive.

I think that you are using liberal in a different manner than I am. As I said, I’m not referring to political issues or affiliation.

[Angrboda]

I resent your characterizing it as a liberal issue.  It is not.  Moreover I find your slippery slope argument without merit.  That you may see 'liberal' concerns as threatening the end of civilization as we know it is neither reasonable nor particularly persuasive.

I think that you are using liberal in a different manner than I am. As I said, I’m not referring to political issues or affiliation.

I don't really think either of the concepts of liberal I've seen you discuss are applicable, and like Boru, I'm inclined to believe that, in terms of this discussion, you are using liberal as nothing more than shorthand for, "things I don't agree with." It seems nothing more than a term you are using for its derogatory effect, rather than any operant relevance to the issues under discussion.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that you are using liberal in a different manner than I am. As I said, I’m not referring to political issues or affiliation.

I don't really think either of the concepts of liberal I've seen you discuss are applicable, and like Boru, I'm inclined to believe that, in terms of this discussion, you are using liberal as nothing more than shorthand for, "things I don't agree with." It seems nothing more than a term you are using for its derogatory effect, rather than any operant relevance to the issues under discussion.

You are wrong.... and I’m not going to discuss appeals to motives here.

[Angrboda]

I don't really think either of the concepts of liberal I've seen you discuss are applicable, and like Boru, I'm inclined to believe that, in terms of this discussion, you are using liberal as nothing more than shorthand for, "things I don't agree with."  It seems nothing more than a term you are using for its derogatory effect, rather than any operant relevance to the issues under discussion.

You are wrong.... and I’m not going to discuss appeals to motives here.

Fine. Then explain how your definition of liberal is relevant to the issues under discussion.

[RoadRunner79]

You are wrong.... and I’m not going to discuss appeals to motives here.

As
Fine. Then explain how your definition of liberal is relevant to the issues under discussion.

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.

[Angrboda]

As
Fine.  Then explain how your definition of liberal is relevant to the issues under discussion.

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.

[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.