Acosta gets his press pass back: Judgement (legal, Whitehouse, boycott)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He had a pass and Trump needs to demonstrate why he revoked his pass and no one else, there have been plenty of follow up questions from reporters but none have been banned. The question is what is the WH criteria for granting access keep in mind this was Trumps choice to call on Acosta. If interrupting the president with follow up questions is grounds for a ban Acosta will have company. Trump banning someone for being rude, that's one for the ages.
I doubt this goes beyond the DC circuit court but Trump is giving the courts quite the workout.
It increasingly appears that it is not going to need to go very far, as the answer is just establishing and clarifying the decorum standards for press room behavior. In fact, this has really has needed to be done for some time now and really should not be that hard to do. It would have been controversial if the Trump Administration did this unilaterally, but now they can impose these standards under the requirement (cover) of a court order.
'Kelly signaled during Wednesday’s hearing that he might try to find a compromise, asking both parties if there was a less-restrictive way that the White House could have reprimanded Acosta, perhaps by letting him keep his pass while prohibiting him from press conferences.
So CNN's lawyer Boutrous agrees that allowing Acosta to keep his 'Press pass' while banning him from press conferences and such would be acceptable.
Meanwhile, the establishment of tighter standards around acceptable press behavior and decorum in the press briefings looks to be a very acceptable way to stop this bad behavior by reporters going forward, including by raging a-holes like Jim Acosta.
This appears to be a problem that is easily resolvable, although it will likely result in much more rigid procedures by reporters in the press room, which they are not going to like.
Actually, the judge didn't. (Even though I think the ruling will have the end effect of benefiting Trump.)
The Consitution lays out three EQUAL branches of government. It does not specify one branch at the top that can decide what two other branches a level below can do or not do. A judge has no more rights to dictate how the executive conducts business within the White House than the executive does to issue an EO dictating how the courts must handle their cases.
Shroud of secrecy? What do you call the process by which appeals courts decide whether or not to hear a case? Maybe Trump should issue an EO mandating that SCOTUS publish the rules and criteria for how they determine the cases they will hear and order them to treat all appeals fairly and evenly?
Great sentence, ocean gaia. Perhaps you'd be the perfect person to inform Trump that fact and let him know that the executive branch of government does not hold power over the Legislative branch nor the Judiciary. Trump has demonstrated over the last 2 years that this concept is entirely lost on him. He feels he's just the CEO of another company and his word is law.
nah...I would not shut down the press conferences...
I would give him his access back...make him sign, and his higher headquarters (CNN in this case) a statement of understanding to press conference etiquette ..so he understands the POTUS press conference is run by POTUS...he choses who he calls on..when called, the reporter gets 1 to 2 questions, then respectfully waits for an answer (the answer may not be the answer he/she wants, but it is an answer)..THEN HE/SHE ALLOWES THEIR PEERS GO GET A CHANCE...Acosta showed he was a rude, and cude reporter who did not care about his peers and their chances to ask questions
upon signing the sworn statement of understanding, he/she would understand that any violation of press conference etiquette would be grounds for dismissal
Last edited by workingclasshero; 11-16-2018 at 11:11 AM..
I have said it before, and I will continue to say it:
trump should re-instate acosta.
Then acosta should be seated in the back of the room. He should NEVER be given a microphone again. He should never be called upon to ask a question. He should never be responded to in any way, not even if his shirt is on fire. ALL CNN flaks should join him in the back row. If any of them stands up before the press conference is finished, they should be told by the Secret Service to "Sit down and shut up or leave the room!"
No, I do not believe the President (or anybody else) has any duty under the Constitution or any of the Amendments to recognize their existence in any way.
I'm not sure that would pass Constitutional muster as you describe it and I certainly do not think that is a good precedent to set.
I agree that Acosta does not have a "right" to ask a question, but what you are proposing is political retribution against members of the free press. A slippery slope indeed, and one with which you may not be happy when the other party has a presence in the White House.
And each branch is subservient to the Constitution, which not only empowers the judiciary to determine what Constitutional rights exists, but requires the Executive to act in accordance with those rights. So when the judiciary determines that the press has a right to due process procedures (narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest), the executive has to abide by that requirement. It isn't because the Court says it has to, its because Constitution says so.
The Consitution gives the judicial branch no enforcement powers over executive and legislative branches. They can issue their opinion.
I'm not sure that would pass Constitutional muster as you describe it and I certainly do not think that is a good precedent to set.
I agree that Acosta does not have a "right" to ask a question, but what you are proposing is political retribution against members of the free press. A slippery slope indeed, and one with which you may not be happy when the other party has a presence in the White House.
the fact is that a press conference is only so long
when it starts, it is usually said that we have time for 15 questions, or we have 15 minutes of question time....
there are many reporters there...and POTUS does get to choses whom to have asking questions... and Acosta may or may not get picked..ever again....
nah...I would not shut down the press conferences...
I would give him his access back...make him sign, and his higher headquarters (CNN in this case) a statement of understanding to press conference etiquette ..so he understands the POTUS press conference is run by POTUS...he choses who he calls on..when called, the reporter gets 1 to 2 questions, then respectfully waits for an answer (the answer may not be the answer he/she wants, but it is an answer)..THEN HE/SHE ALLOWES THEIR PEERS GO GET A CHANCE...Acosta should he was a rude, and cude reporter who did not care about his peers and their chances to ask questions
upon signing the sworn statement of understanding, he/she would understand that any violation of press conference etiquette would be grounds for dismissal
This^^^.
This is really pretty easy to fix and the fix is going to apply to more than just Jim Acosta. This is how you do this, even though the press is not going to like it.
You are incorrect. Read Sherrill. Your argument was addressed and unanimously rejected. Again, read Sherrill.
Sherrill is wrong and will go down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.