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

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously it's not going to matter what I think..but Kelly has indicated with his comments already that the failure to present any process or a deciding agent opens them up to what a federalist society vetted judge considers a breach..and if they remain so incompetent in pursuant arguments, the right to petition complaint is established by default. We would then have, in the case of the white house ejecting a reporter and then releasing misinformation about the incident, a breach of two constitutional rights in a single swoop.

Not a great look.

[John V]

Even assuming the worst, and accepting the doctored infowars video that the administration tried to fob off...they still have a binding duty to the 5th amendment.

The context of the fifth amendment is "capital, or otherwise infamous crime... criminal case... due process of law." I don't see how that applies in this situation.

---

That's something that's always mystified me.  Who thinks that we should be stingy rather than generous... when it comes to what the government can't do to us with all of the terrible power of the state at it's disposal?  Wouldn't most of us side with the little man, if..for no other reason, than to make it harder for big gov to shank us while we aren't looking?

Maybe part of the different interpretations is that I see the intern as the "little man" in this situation, and Acosta as the person with the power (which is apparently how Acosta saw it too). I don't see her as big government trying to shank a defenseless Acosta.

---

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.

If that's the case - and that seems to be Khem's main angle too - then why bother discussing it further? Isn't it a settled issue for you?

OTOH, if you do want to discuss the issues, then why just fall back on this one judge's ruling?

---

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

I doubt that Congress, or any government agency, wrote laws or regulations regarding access. Until now, why would they?

It's my understanding that the White House is now going to draw up official policy regarding such. I doubt that it will favor the Acostas of the world. So, it's probably going to end up that CNN won a battle, but lost a war.

In a way it makes me think of this new forum. The rules aresimple - behave like you're in a job interview. Hopefully, people will voluntarily respect that, so why bother writing rules in greater detail? But, if someone (Acosta by analogy) insists on pushing the envelope, then more detailed rules could unfortunately be required.

[The Grand Nudger]

The intern didn't revoke acostas pass (or did she, who can say, not the admin)..the white house did.  The executive.  They're bound by duty oath and law to the constitution.  Anytime government overreach is checked by reference to the constitution, I call it a win for little men everywhere, personally.

[John V]

There's nothing in the constitution that requires the White House to hold press conferences. So, the rules, or lack thereof, pertaining to the press conferences isn't a constitutional issue.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, there isn't, but there is a 1st and a 5th amendment, and no matter what the government decides to do they have to act in accordance to both.

[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.

If that's the case - and that seems to be Khem's main angle too - then why bother discussing it further? Isn't it a settled issue for you?

OTOH, if you do want to discuss the issues, then why just fall back on this one judge's ruling?

Relying on rational justification is the first step in any argument or discussion. If Roadie's opinions are poorly justified, and I have a more justified opinion, it makes no sense to defer to an unjustified opinion. Or are you next going to suggest we not rely on facts and just simply make up whatever we want to believe and consider our discussion about this made up nonsense reasonable? Roadie was shot down both because his views were poorly justified and because his argument depended on a bare assertion, namely his views on what our jurisprudential values should be. I am having a discussion. You seem to want to defer to poorly justified nonsense simply to make things interesting. And you are lying when you imply that I am simply falling back on this one judge's ruling as I made it clear that I agreed that his ruling was not final. So stop misrepresenting my position.

Maybe you are having a discussion and in that discussion an argument is being made. The two aren't in conflict necessarily, but you seem to want to emphasize the former, whereas because of the quality of Roadie's arguments, I have focused on the latter.

[RoadRunner79]

Just off hand, I don't really think people are understanding where I am coming from.   It's been brought up twice that my position is politically motivated, when I said nothing of the sort about political affiliation, and that makes no difference to me.   If one wants to argue, that there was no due process in the revoking of the pass, I think that is because there was none established, because having a white house pass is a privilege held by a select few, and not an inalienable right that the founders recognized as being beyond the government and held by all.  If it was said that it was just unfair, and that they did not have just cause to remove the pass, then I can understand that.   Trying to connect it to a amendment that deals with criminal prosecution... not so much.

I do think that for civil discussion, that people should address what was said more, and read into what is not said less.

---

I found this article that seems relevant on decorum at White House briefings.  https://www.dailywire.com/news/38476/cbs...frank-camp 

CBS Reporter Major Garret being questioned on a standard of conduct for White House press briefings.

There is – no question about it. It’s the most majestic political place in America, the White House. The only place second to that in my experience where I spent almost 15 years [is] the United States Congress. It’s a little bit more rough and tumble there. It can be rough and tumble at times in the White House. But it is a place of institutional heft and commands institutional respect – and I will say on my behalf, the previous press conference we had with President Trump in the Rose Garden, the president looked at me, I thought he called on me, I stood up, the White House aide handed me the microphone, I began to speak to the President of the United States, President Trump looked at me and said, "No, behind you. Kaitlan [Collins]," with CNN.

So I said, "Oh," and what did I do? I handed back the microphone. Now, some of my colleagues might say, "What [did] you do that for? You had the microphone; you have a voice; you can speak." The President of the United States said "not you." To my way of thinking, that's enough. The president said, I didn't call on you, I called on somebody else. Alright then – and I didn't get a question that press conference. Some might say, "Well, you laid down," and "you were too deferential." I don't feel that way...

I think that this is a very commendable attitude.  The only thing I would comment on, is after he did that, I would have made sure to call on him next.  I'm a little saddened, that such a person didn't get to ask their question.

He goes on to add:

They very well might, and my interpretation of that, Larry, is all of these questions are best resolved through the political channels that our country has long developed and long relied upon, and that's why...I do my level best to not put myself or make myself part of the story, and I think the best journalists operate that way.

Because, again, I go back to that fundamental point. Why are you standing up to ask a question in the first place? To get an answer. Why's that answer important? Because it tells the country something it didn't already know. That's the whole point of this interaction with the American presidency. To inform the public of what they have not yet learned.

I don't think that a reporters job is to play partisan identity politics and to be the star of the show.   I like this guy!

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't matter what a reporters job is.  It's the executives job to perform all of their functions in accordance with their constitutional limitations.

[RoadRunner79]

It doesn't matter what a reporters job is.  It's the executives job to perform all of their functions in accordance with their constitutional limitations.

What does the constitution say about white house press passes.... what's been cited so far, appears to be about criminal persecution?

[The Grand Nudger]

The white house couldn't tell the judge presiding what the constitution says..in fact, they could tell the judge presiding nothing at all.  This is what lead to the pass being reinstated.