Hold This L: Judge curb-stomps the GOP's pathetic pentagon press ban

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The policy was to protect national security..

Easiest marks on the planet ^^

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong, it's a separation of powers issue. The judicial branch has no more constitutional authority to set the rules for the executive branch than the executive branch has to set the rules for the judiciary or congress. It's a really simple concept.

.

That's a stupid.lie that will be heard nowhere but from the historical tumor that is the MAGA cult.

Just, absurd. The judicial branch absolutely has the power to enforce the laws in place. If that means deleting an unconstutional executive branch policy, then doing so is literally their job.

 

[OKTexas]

Not sure what you mean by “codified in law”.

Let’s say the pentagon said no access for black reporters. Is that allowed?

As a blanket policy, no. On a cases by case basis, yes.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As a blanket policy, no. On a cases by case basis, yes.

.

Not if the reason is that they are black.

 

[Marener]

As a blanket policy, no. On a cases by case basis, yes.

.

Great. So we agree on something.

Why do you think the government can't have a policy refusing access to black reporters? I think the government can't discriminate on the basis of race.

In the same vein, can the government discriminate on the basis of someone's speech?

 

[OKTexas]

That's a stupid.lie that will be heard nowhere but from the historical tumor that is the MAGA cult.

Just, absurd. The judicial branch absolutely has the power to enforce the laws in place. If that means deleting an unconstutional executive branch policy, then doing so is literally their job.

You just made my point, rules for access to the executive branch are NOT laws. And the first amendment only give the press the right to publish unencumbered, it does not grant them access to restricted areas anywhere in the government, or anywhere in the country for that matter.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You just made my point, rules for access to the executive branch are NOT laws.

Nobody said they were.

It's the job of the judiciary to delete those rules, when they are unconstitutional or just plain illegal.

It's one of their main functions.

 

[OKTexas]

Great. So we agree on something.

Why do you think the government can't have a policy refusing access to black reporters? I think the government can't discriminate on the basis of race.

In the same vein, can the government discriminate on the basis of someone's speech?

This is not about speech, it's about access to government facilities and personnel.

.

 

[Marener]

This is not about speech, it's about access to government facilities and personnel.

.

It's definitely about speech, because the ability to access the facilities is based on their speech.

 

[WEATHER53]

Are you sure that free speech and free press aren’t relevant?

Free does not mean anything, anyplace, any time that you demand

 

[WEATHER53]

Lib loons have been trying to pass off acts as speech and thinkers see right thru that

 

[Marener]

Free does not mean anything, anyplace, any time that you demand

It's pretty close. We live in a country with some of the most expansive interpretation of free speech.

 

[OKTexas]

It's definitely about speech, because the ability to access the facilities is based on their speech.

No one is restricting their speech, they can say anything they want. The court is however trying to take the right of freedom of association from other people. Can a court tell you who you can and can't talk to?

.

 

[Marener]

No one is restricting their speech, they can say anything they want. The court is however trying to take the right of freedom of association from other people. Can a court tell you who you can and can't talk to?

.

The government is discriminating against people on the basis of their speech.

 

[OKTexas]

The government is discriminating against people on the basis of their speech.

Once again, it's freedom of association, can a judge say you have to associate with someone that said something that pissed you off?

.

 

[Marener]

Once again, it's freedom of association, can a judge say you have to associate with someone that said something that pissed you off?

.

Me personally? No.

But I'm not the government and I am not bound by the 1st amendment.

The government is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The government cannot limit someone's press pass because they won't publish stories favorable to them.

 

[WEATHER53]

Me personally? No.

But I'm not the government and I am not bound by the 1st amendment.

The government is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The government cannot limit someone's press pass because they won't publish stories favorable to them.

The government can restrict access to government function with snyone
It’s not a speech matter

 

[WEATHER53]

It's definitely about speech, because the ability to access the facilities is based on their speech.

Dummy
There is no law to Hear someone speak.
You have a right to express views but no guarantees you can listen to everything you want . Your response to things you hear can’t be controlled by government , that’s what free speech is. As usual libs are engaging in changing wird definition

 

[Marener]

The government can restrict access to government function with snyone
It’s not a speech matter

What does "with synone" mean?

 

[Marener]

Dummy
There is no law to Hear someone speak.
You have a right to express views but no guarantees you can listen to everything you want . Your response to things you hear can’t be controlled by government , that’s what free speech is. As usual libs are engaging in changing wird definition

If the Pentagon is going to issue press passes, they have to do so in a non-discriminatory fashion that does not violate the constitution.