Judge orders Trump administration to restore Acosta's press pass

The liberal solution to this would be to let everyone come in, isn't that their position on everything? Or how about a daily diversity lottery, they also seem to like that idea.

The big irony here is this judge would not tolerate in his court room the antics Acosta pulls in the briefings.

 

Trump was asked about this by Chris Wallace:

 

Oh dear.... Please review my posting history and find the place I said I support Trump.

Hint - I never said it, so don't bother. I am not one who needs to look at the letter next to someone's name to determine if I agree with them or not. Both "teams," do **** I like and **** I hate. I don't need Sean or Rachel to tell me what to think.

Nobody has responded to my request. Maybe you will. Please point to the place in the constitution that requires the president to talk to reporters, then I need to see the part where a judge can decide who gets to be there. I can wait. Please, go find it.

 

I don't give a damn if he is into Gay Nazis who Attack Aliens. He has the right to Free Speech. We can all mock him from there.

 

well clean your finger and when you are done, try and find a link or some other credible evidence that you can share with us.

 

The White House should cancel all future press briefings and turn the press room into storage space.

 

LOL....I thought Trump only hires the best.

 

When it comes to handling the press, Trump always reminds me of the Warden in Shawshank prison.

He demands that journalists shine his ego, like a mirror, and feeds them nothing but abuse. Or perhaps Melania's half-baked cake.

But the White House wouldn't be the same without em...

Welcome back Andy.
Sorry, Jim!

 

Trump does not owns the WH. The voters do.

 

If they do that, how'd trump manage to spread his propaganda among the American people??

 

Since when does Trump believes in due process? Wasn't he the one who want to take guns away without due process?

 

Ok fine, you are not a Trump supporter, I withdraw that statement only!!!!

 

He can speak and he is libel for it!!!!

 

The consequence of that would be very ugly for Trump. The courts would mandate appearances or reports. And really it should be an impeachable offense.

 

President Obama was...he had a pen and a phone and played the race card anytime someone didn't like his policies.

 

Yeah, I'd sit his ass in the back and ignore him. For an attention whore like Jim Acosta that's worse than being banned.

 

He is pretty ignorant as to the very definition of due process.

 

Please point to the part of the constitution that requires the president to talk to the press. Go ahead; I'll wait.

 

That's what I would do. Trump should have had security escort Acosta from the room for disrupting the conference.

 

Ever heard of the EEOC?

 

It is probably very difficult to find judges who respect the law now.

 

Sanders should call on Acosta first and let him go on until his MSM pals start giving him nuggies, or until the conference is timed out.

 

Show us where it is required of the White House to have press conferences or a White House Press Corp.

 

Are you really surprised?

 

The court referred to due process which applies to being deprived of "life, liberty or property", the judge (a Trump appointment) deemed Acosta's interest in the pass as "property". All that is required is for the White House press office to send Acosta a notice of their intent to revoke his pass, maybe state the reasons, and schedule a date and time for a hearing on this. At that time Acosta should be allowed to dispute the validity of whatever reasons are given to revoke his pass and the hearing officer should consider them.

Although the decision to return his pass is temporary, most expect in a final determination the revocation will be found invalid simply because there was no notice and hearing. I also expect this error will be promptly corrected providing Acosta with due notice and scheduling the hearing. There isn't any established procedure, rules of evidence, right to counsel or record of precedent, it should suffice if whatever hearing process is applied doesn't violate constitutional rights.

I don't think the First Amendment is at issue, the judge made no reference to it.

I doubt Acosta will ever get the mic again, regardless of whether the judge rules (as expected) that the temporary restoration of his pass should be permanent.

I'm not sure this outcome is a net gain for the media since it will establish the validity of a president's choice not to take questions from specific reporters.