The Acosta ruling

[task0778]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump.

That does not render him infallible. This was a bad ruling. The Judicial Branch has no business telling the Executive Branch how to conduct internal affairs.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied.

That is abject nonsense. Acosta was not ejected for content, but behavior.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf.

FOX is under new management. There is a rival organization in the works.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process ... Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

Explain your rationale. How does this event offend either amendment?

 

[Rambunctious]

I strongly disagree with the judge...Trump can't ban CNN but he sure can ban a dangerous nutcase from entering the small confines of the briefing room....
Acosta is out of control....
Remember...the GOP doesn't like Trump and they look for ways to thwart him every chance they get....if this ruling was to be appealed Acosta would not be back....

 

[Mac1958]

At what point do we learn that to just summarily "ban" something probably won't be a good idea?

We sure love our simplistic band aids, our instant gratification. We're regressing.

 

[iceberg]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

 

[BlackFlag]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

The White House belongs to the people, not the President. He works for US, not the other way around. If the President is an indecent sleazebag, you treat him as such. He does not respect decency. I'm not sure he respects anything.

 

[edward37]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

 

[edward37]

There is no perjury trap when one tells the truth That's the fly in Trumps and Giulianies soup

 

[iceberg]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

oh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.

you and your fucking one way streets dude. if you hate lying, then hate it when your side does it or shut the fuck up with the 3rd grade w/o a binky whining.

 

[BlackFlag]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

oh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.

you and your fucking one way streets dude. if you hate lying, then hate it when your side does it or shut the fuck up with the 3rd grade w/o a binky whining.

^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves lies

 

[iceberg]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

oh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.

you and your fucking one way streets dude. if you hate lying, then hate it when your side does it or shut the fuck up with the 3rd grade w/o a binky whining.

^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves lies

^claims i love lies but can't show where i've excused them.

 

[edward37]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

oh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.

you and your fucking one way streets dude. if you hate lying, then hate it when your side does it or shut the fuck up with the 3rd grade w/o a binky whining.

^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves lies

^claims i love lies but can't show where i've excused them.

You are now in a perjury trap

 

[iceberg]

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

oh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.

you and your fucking one way streets dude. if you hate lying, then hate it when your side does it or shut the fuck up with the 3rd grade w/o a binky whining.

^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves lies

^claims i love lies but can't show where i've excused them.

You are now in a perjury trap

link it. feel free.

 

[OKTexas]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

This is all absolute bullshit. All due process provisions in the Constitution deal with protections in criminal proceedings or the takings clause. I don't think the founders ever foresaw it being applied to press passes for the White House. CNN has 50 people with hard passes to the White House, Acosta is not the only game in town.

This is the kind of political crap the courts should refuse to hear.

.

 

[petro]

The only thing Acosta has won is making himself, once again, the lead story.
He is no journalist.

 

[asaratis]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

This is all absolute bullshit. All due process provisions in the Constitution deal with protections in criminal proceedings or the takings clause. I don't think the founders ever foresaw it being applied to press passes for the White House. CNN has 50 people with hard passes to the White House, Acosta is not the only game in town.

This is the kind of political crap the courts should refuse to hear.

.

Not to worry! Little Jimmy has his seat back now.
.




.





.





.




.

 

[jknowgood]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

The White House belongs to the people, not the President. He works for US, not the other way around. If the President is an indecent sleazebag, you treat him as such. He does not respect decency. I'm not sure he respects anything.

I bet you supported Obama when he said the white house is his house.

 

[jknowgood]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

oh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.

you and your fucking one way streets dude. if you hate lying, then hate it when your side does it or shut the fuck up with the 3rd grade w/o a binky whining.

^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves lies

I was amused when Obama lied, and you ate it up. I was really amused, wben it was leaked that Obama relied on your ignorance to get obamacare approved and liberals actually defended it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

There is already a very detailed and clear due process in place, and rules regarding the press conferences. It involves a warning, a notice of inapproriate behaviour, and a hearing. None of these were followed by the Trump Administration.

And I go back to President Trump calling on Accosta, essentially to pick a fight with him. He called on him for a question, and then cut him off and started insulting him before Accosta finished the question. If he had no intention of answering Accosta's question, why call on him?

Trump has, on several occasions, called on reporters in Press Conferences just so he could refuse their questions, insult them, their employers, and to call them "fake news". He's done this to CNN reporters, and reporters from the "failing" New York Times. This is flat out bullying. The public isn't buying it, any more than they buy Trump's lies and deflections. And he's done it at every single news conference he's held.

Trump needs to end his assault on the media. It's not working. In fact, it's backfiring, BIGLY. WAPO and the "failing" New York Times now have the highest circulation in their history. Ratings are up for left wing media sources, and down for places like Breitbart. Truth is winning.

 

[jknowgood]

The only thing Acosta has won is making himself, once again, the lead story.
He is no journalist.

Oh, and also will never get called on to ask a question again.