• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge orders Trump administration to restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press pass

Try again, with a coherent sentence.

i agree, you should try again LMAO
We are still waiting for you to support your claim. Show us where in the ruling your assumptions is rational, try not to dodge this time, thanks!

(who bets he dodges again)
 
A Republican appointed judge ruled against Der Leader and his Snowflakes are melting.

Love it.
 
i agree, you should try again LMAO
We are still waiting for you to support your claim. Show us where in the ruling your assumptions is rational, try not to dodge this time, thanks!

(who bets he dodges again)

What part of The Constitution did the judge use to validate his ruling?
 
How many times do you think Acosta will be called upon in the future?

If Trump was wanting to downplay drama and make a point, zero. We'll see if that happens. It's also likely that Trump will call on him just to kick the press drama into overdrive as it's a narrative he can drive rather well and takes focus off of everything else.
 
A Republican appointed judge ruled against Der Leader and his Snowflakes are melting.

Love it.

So, you are saying that Trump does a very good job at making appointments, as this judge is obviously acting impartially? Nice to know that.
 
What part of The Constitution did the judge use to validate his ruling?

The 5th amendment, which everyone seems to forget. The judge ruled that the WH didn't follow due process for removing Acosta's pass.
 
And the constitution takes backseat to politics again.

I'm trying to find any source that says Acosta couldn't say or report whatever he wants or that CNN can't send in a reporter who understands the rules of the room. I also can't find where Acosta was wrongfully terminated or harmed in some way. Hell, his name is better known than ever and his career is decided by his fame.

So many people pretending this is some attack on freedom of the press and not one single argument as to why. Over and over again there are attacks on either Acosta or Trump or Obama. Not one single post or article that I can find showing how the first amendment was actually damaged.

Trump blubbers. He says dumb things and sometimes chooses to completely avoid questions. Those aren't violations of the BOR.

I know preliminary rulings don't actually have to be based in reality. I really hope any final decisions are.
 
The president (any president) isn't obligated to answer any question from any journalist.

This judge obviously doesn't understand The Constitution and is unfit to sit on the bench.

The judge never said he was obligated to answer questions. The judge made a ruling on hard pass privilege based on legal precedence.
 
A victory for free speech.

And the toddler-in-chief will have his usual mental breakdown.

Gonna be a rough week for him. :lamo

This wasn't a ruling on the underlying case, just a temporary stay. The judge in the case concluded that Acosta's 5th amendment rights of due process were infringed. There's a lot more to go in this case, and it does leave open revocation of his hard pass if he is given due process.

The case will go on, I'm sure, to try to address the underlying 1st and 5th claims. But it's not a permanent rebuke of Trump's abilities here and it spoke nothing of the 1st in the ruling.
 
The 5th amendment, which everyone seems to forget. The judge ruled that the WH didn't follow due process for removing Acosta's pass.

Nor was he treated as a criminal or detained or somehow harmed. Due process applies to the law, not privilege of sitting in the WH press pool.
 
The judge never said he was obligated to answer questions. The judge made a ruling on hard pass privilege based on legal precedence.

There's no law obligating the White House to issue press passes, hard, or otherwise.
 
And the constitution takes backseat to politics again.

I'm trying to find any source that says Acosta couldn't say or report whatever he wants or that CNN can't send in a reporter who understands the rules of the room. I also can't find where Acosta was wrongfully terminated or harmed in some way. Hell, his name is better known than ever and his career is decided by his fame.

So many people pretending this is some attack on freedom of the press and not one single argument as to why. Over and over again there are attacks on either Acosta or Trump or Obama. Not one single post or article that I can find showing how the first amendment was actually damaged.

Trump blubbers. He says dumb things and sometimes chooses to completely avoid questions. Those aren't violations of the BOR.

I know preliminary rulings don't actually have to be based in reality. I really hope any final decisions are.

The ruling spoke nothing of the 1st, and the judge specifically said he wasn't addressing CNN's 1st amendment questions. This temporary (likely short lived) reprieve is based on the 5th.
 
If Trump was wanting to downplay drama and make a point, zero. We'll see if that happens. It's also likely that Trump will call on him just to kick the press drama into overdrive as it's a narrative he can drive rather well and takes focus off of everything else.

We are on the same page. I would prefer isolation because that's how I opperate, but Trump's approach is always dragging someone down to the 7th level of hell with him before revealing the exit strategy.
 
We are on the same page. I would prefer isolation because that's how I opperate, but Trump's approach is always dragging someone down to the 7th level of hell with him before revealing the exit strategy.

Trump's exit strategy is generally either firing someone or suing someone.
 
It is funny how some people believe Acosta is somehow entitled to a hard pass, because "It’s literally part of his job". If that were the case, there are thousands of journalists that can claim they have to be admitted too, because it's part of their job and their "free speech".

So, is it now that Acosta can never lose his pass, if he still has his job?

No, the judge ruled that there must be due process before taking away his pass. This is based on legal precedence. Trump is not above the law.
 
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/jud...orter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html


Now it is in the WH backyard to devise a process for removing press credentials

Judge criticized WH for their ever changing stories
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnn-wins-legal-battle-against-trump-over-acostas-press-access

I don't see where Acosta freedom of speech has been abridged. He is still free to say, write and report anything he wants. CNN is free to name another reporter to take his place. Perhaps one not so confrontational and bit more courteous and tactful. Does the removal of one press pass mean the lost of freedom of the press? Especially when the one with the pass revoked can be replaced by another for the network.

Or is this the slippery slope you're afraid of, first CNN reporter and then perhaps another and another. The same fear second amendment right advocates fear about every new gun law. Perhaps both are afraid of the same thing. Too much control, too much government control.
 
How many times do you think Acosta will be called upon in the future?

0...but that shouldn't preclude him from doing his job as a journalist. I think he could still get the scoop on any given storyline without ever being called on by the POTUS or his press secretary.
 
The ruling spoke nothing of the 1st, and the judge specifically said he wasn't addressing CNN's 1st amendment questions. This temporary (likely short lived) reprieve is based on the 5th.

I thought the ruling referred to both, but I know for sure most of the arguments in here do. Even the 5th won't hold up, though. He was not prosecuted. He just lost a privilege. Due process doesn't apply to granting access to a press room.

It's preliminary anyway. I feel like the judge played it safe politically and covered his butt if someone surprises him with a good argument. I will be absolutely shocked if a measured decision that takes facts and a true reading of the constitution somehow finds the same way.
 
Nor was he treated as a criminal or detained or somehow harmed. Due process applies to the law, not privilege of sitting in the WH press pool.

This is just a temporary order, but the WH is obligated to protect the powers of the Executive branch under the Constitution. If I were them, I'd say, "Nice ruling, but sorry, the courts have no power to tell the Executive branch how to run their press conferences, or anything else." This is a separation of powers issue and the WH should not comply, since the court is reaching beyond it's Constitutional powers.
 
There's no law obligating the White House to issue press passes, hard, or otherwise.

No one said there was. Have you even read the ruling? The judge said the WH can't take away a journalist's hard pass without due process and based his ruling on legal precedence.

No one has ever said anything about issuing hard passes. That's not even part of the debate.
 
I thought the ruling referred to both, but I know for sure most of the arguments in here do. Even the 5th won't hold up, though. He was not prosecuted. He just lost a privilege. Due process doesn't apply to granting access to a press room.

It's preliminary anyway. I feel like the judge played it safe politically and covered his butt if someone surprises him with a good argument. I will be absolutely shocked if a measured decision that takes facts and a true reading of the constitution somehow finds the same way.

Incorrect, this was established in a 1977 court case

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ality-revoking-jim-acostas-press-pass/575479/

Reasons for denying or revoking a hard pass are very limited in scope and mostly deal with threats to the President. Also, anyone denied or having their press pass revoked must be notified in writing as to why it was revoked. There was established due process for this. It's necessary so that Presidents don't just throw out anyone they don't like from the Press Pool. That is not only bad, but dangerous precedent to set. A free press is a necessity for a free state. Politicians serve at the pleasure of the People, they are beholden to us and answer to us, the press is our tool for questioning government action and intent and gauging the effectiveness and appropriateness of government action.

So it's already established that due process is necessary, and Trump violated that. Now if Trump really wants to push the issue, he can give due process and once again revoke Acosta's press pass.
 
This is just a temporary order, but the WH is obligated to protect the powers of the Executive branch under the Constitution. If I were them, I'd say, "Nice ruling, but sorry, the courts have no power to tell the Executive branch how to run their press conferences, or anything else." This is a separation of powers issue and the WH should not comply, since the court is reaching beyond it's Constitutional powers.

You are right. I think the best answer to this, though, is for them to put Acosta in a corner facing the wall and ignore him unless he needs to be removed for infringing on the other reporters. Let the courts realize there is no valid argument for him to keep his pass. They will be complying and letting the folks screaming over nothing find out on their own that no law was broken and the constitution was upheld.
 
Back
Top Bottom