User Panel
Quoted:
It's settled case law. That is your only argument. So you agree with it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
That intern should press charges against Acosta for assault and battery. She was just doing her job.
|
|
Quoted:
You might want to keep reading past the appellate court's description of what the lower court said. For example: "Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists challenged. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all. " DonS was therefore right in stating that there is no constitutional right to be at a press briefing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because Constitutional rights are at stake and those are decisions made for the courts and not at the whim of a man who is having feud with another man. This isn't a hard concept. With respect to its requirement of notice and opportunity to rebut, the Court relied on its determination that denial of a White House press pass constitutes a deprivation of "liberty" without due process of law within the meaning of the fifth amendment because it interferes with the free exercise of the profession of journalism. "Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists challenged. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all. " DonS was therefore right in stating that there is no constitutional right to be at a press briefing. |
|
Quoted:
Aren’t we saying that the reporters don’t have the right to be in there, and that revoking Acosta’s pass is not violating his rights. In that case he’s not violating any rights by hogging up the time View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: It's not what he did it's how he does it. He flagrantly denies others their right to access the president. He takes over and won't relent to others wanting to exercise their rights. |
|
Quoted:
Not a 1st Am issue. How you cannot see that is what is mind-boggling. Do I have to have due process before you can deny me entry into your house? Is access to the White House necessary to report? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The 1977 case actually helps set up a standard for the time that was reasonable. Up until then there was no release of info by the SS as to why people were denied their 1a rights. How you don't see that as a problem is mind boggling. Do I have to have due process before you can deny me entry into your house? Is access to the White House necessary to report? |
|
Quoted:
No, it isn't - no matter what some may say otherwise. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
It isn't a 5th amendment thing, either. Acosta has no right to be there. None of his rights were harmed in any way. Now, if Trump forced him to take a ride on Marine 1, you might have a point. Hmmm, how many people could they fit on Marine 1? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Not even an issue with the 1st but rather the 5th Now, if Trump forced him to take a ride on Marine 1, you might have a point. Hmmm, how many people could they fit on Marine 1? The legal decision as handed down is the issue here and does deal with the 5th. So sorry DonS you are incorrect and as such you can either live with it or hold your breath, stomp your feet, scream out "not My Judge" and throw a tantrum on the floor. |
|
Quoted: "freedom of the press" is NOT freedom of the corporate press, it is the right of anyone to print and publish their thoughts and writings. The bill of rights is about individual liberties. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
Not even an issue with the 1st but rather the 5th View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Its a direct assualt on the 1st ammendment. I mean if obama did this, EVERYONE here would be screaming impeachment. |
|
Quoted:
Where does it state he has a right to disrupt and harrass, or refuse to return government owned property? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 1977 case actually helps set up a standard for the time that was reasonable. Up until then there was no release of info by the SS as to why people were denied their 1a rights. How you don't see that as a problem is mind boggling. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that you either didn't read the relevant parts of the case or don't understand the implications of it. Let me put it this way. If Hillary had won and she revoked all the press passes of all Conservative news organizations, as you are suggesting Trump should do to Acosta, would you be upset with that and complaining? The case law might not be the best, not may things are nowadays, but up until this point it hasn't been an issue. Trump now has the opportunity to appeal case law and take the to the SCOTUS to have it changed. Why is that a bad thing? Why should he not have to follow case law? This is the stupidest fucking thing I think that's happened to Trump so far. With respect to its requirement of notice and opportunity to rebut, the Court relied on its determination that denial of a White House press pass constitutes a deprivation of "liberty" without due process of law within the meaning of the fifth amendment because it interferes with the free exercise of the profession of journalism. |
|
|
What killed off the government's position was indicated by the judge:
“Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta’s press pass,” |
|
|
Quoted:
If you read the case law it talks about what clear things there are not acceptable like threats to life and such which can be immediate removal/rejection of press pass. There isn't a list of approved things you can and cannot say. It is left pretty open to where the person or group who wants to make the point to remove press access of the other has to make a case and not just because he asked a hard question or got aggressive in his questioning. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 1977 case actually helps set up a standard for the time that was reasonable. Up until then there was no release of info by the SS as to why people were denied their 1a rights. How you don't see that as a problem is mind boggling. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that you either didn't read the relevant parts of the case or don't understand the implications of it. Let me put it this way. If Hillary had won and she revoked all the press passes of all Conservative news organizations, as you are suggesting Trump should do to Acosta, would you be upset with that and complaining? The case law might not be the best, not may things are nowadays, but up until this point it hasn't been an issue. Trump now has the opportunity to appeal case law and take the to the SCOTUS to have it changed. Why is that a bad thing? Why should he not have to follow case law? This is the stupidest fucking thing I think that's happened to Trump so far. With respect to its requirement of notice and opportunity to rebut, the Court relied on its determination that denial of a White House press pass constitutes a deprivation of "liberty" without due process of law within the meaning of the fifth amendment because it interferes with the free exercise of the profession of journalism. |
|
I'd brief the press on what the expectation of behavior is. You don't immediately give up the mic when the intern reaches for it, you're out. You yell questions, without the mic in your hand, you're out. Don't sit down and shut up when asked, you're out. Etc.
|
|
So is the guy at Disney with the Trump sign on a ride allowed back in Disney and entitled to "due process"??????
1st Amendment you know................ |
|
Quoted:
So is the guy at Disney with the Trump sign on a ride allowed back in Disney and entitled to "due process"?????? 1st Amendment you know................ View Quote And has nothing to do with this issue. |
|
It would seem easy enough for the White House to publish a set of rules with penalties, then give Costa his hearing...within 60 days. The results of the hearing would be published within 60 days of the hearing. If he wants to appeal, the appeal would be set within 60 days. In the unlikely event that he is successful in having his pass restored, guess how long it will take to get his pass back to him...yep, 60 days. They could follow the court's direction and still keep him on ice for quite a while.
It would be akin to having all the expense and problems of having your car towed for a DUII charge for which you are found innocent..still costs time and money. One way or another, Costa would be taught that he is not the one in charge, and if he wants to play, he has to follow the rules. |
|
View Quote Judging my his douchebag smirk, I don’t think he’s thought that far ahead. |
|
|
Quoted:
It would seem easy enough for the White House to publish a set of rules with penalties, then give Costa his hearing...within 60 days. The results of the hearing would be published within 60 days of the hearing. If he wants to appeal, the appeal would be set within 60 days. In the unlikely event that he is successful in having his pass restored, guess how long it will take to get his pass back to him...yep, 60 days. They could follow the court's direction and still keep him on ice for quite a while. It would be akin to having all the expense and problems of having your car towed for a DUII charge for which you are found innocent..still costs time and money. One way or another, Costa would be taught that he is not the one in charge, and if he wants to play, he has to follow the rules. View Quote It would be akin to you being arrested and charged with a crime. What crime? Hold on, we need to write the law that we think you broke. Then it will go to court for which you are found innocent..still costs time and money. |
|
let acoasta in make him sit in the corner with a donkey head on and a kick me sign taped to his back.
|
|
Quoted:
If you read the case law it talks about what clear things there are not acceptable like threats to life and such which can be immediate removal/rejection of press pass. There isn't a list of approved things you can and cannot say. It is left pretty open to where the person or group who wants to make the point to remove press access of the other has to make a case and not just because he asked a hard question or got aggressive in his questioning. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
This was a decorum issue. He was asked to stop speaking and surrender the mic so that other questions could be answered. I bet a higher court, maybe even the USSC, ultimately disagrees with this ruling. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If you read the case law it talks about what clear things there are not acceptable like threats to life and such which can be immediate removal/rejection of press pass. There isn't a list of approved things you can and cannot say. It is left pretty open to where the person or group who wants to make the point to remove press access of the other has to make a case and not just because he asked a hard question or got aggressive in his questioning. |
|
Quoted:
What killed off the government's position was indicated by the judge: “Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta’s press pass,” View Quote |
|
Simple, Never call on him for a question.
Or even better make him apologize live in the press conference to the intern and Trump before answering another question from him. |
|
|
If anyone thinks GEDJT has NOT been thinking up a way to hammer these commie shit slinging agitators out of existence since 2016, you my friend are delusional.
Until asscunt made contact with that tasty intern there has been no legal justification of barring him or others. Now the judge ruled that there needs to be a procedure in place... short leash, aggro dog kind of thing, JUST enough lead to build up frothing snarling charge only to get stopped short. GEDJT or Sarah the Destroyer will bait asscunt or April fool into violating said procedures and get banned for the remainder of the admin. |
|
Do we know for a fact that Acosta/CNN tried to appeal to the WH and the WH refused to hear their appeal?
I mean, if there wasn't even an attempt to ask for an appeal, you don't really have a right to go running to a Federal judge and crying foul and whining about "muh due process", do you? |
|
Quoted:
Do we know for a fact that Acosta/CNN tried to appeal to the WH and the WH refused to hear their appeal? I mean, if there wasn't even an attempt to ask for an appeal, you don't really have a right to go running to a Federal judge and crying foul and whining about "muh due process", do you? View Quote Of course you don't. |
|
Trump should end the press sessions and go with private interview sessions with invited members only
|
|
Quoted:
I'd brief the press on what the expectation of behavior is. You don't immediately give up the mic when the intern reaches for it, you're out. You yell questions, without the mic in your hand, you're out. Don't sit down and shut up when asked, you're out. Etc. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Do you know for a fact he didn't? Do you have a source other than your limitless nether openings? Of course you don't. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Do we know for a fact that Acosta/CNN tried to appeal to the WH and the WH refused to hear their appeal? I mean, if there wasn't even an attempt to ask for an appeal, you don't really have a right to go running to a Federal judge and crying foul and whining about "muh due process", do you? Of course you don't. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Arfcom labors under the false assumption that "we have our judges" who wil just be stooges because Trump appointed them. Once you have a job for life you can do what you want View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
He already had permission to be there with the press pass. That is the difference. That would be like you inviting me in your house for a conversation and you not liking what I said. In this situation the relevant law says that there is a procedure for removing access for Acosta. I don't care if you like it or not. Just like I am sure you don't care if I like it or not. The point is that it is the law and the precedent that has to legally be followed to get Acosta out. View Quote Guess what? So can Donald Trump. The White House is his residence and he has all the privileges there that you and I enjoy in our residences. |
|
I found the perfect advocate for Jim Acosta. Amnesty International
Amnesty International, the global human rights organization, believes that the protests in Gaza, as violent as they are, should be treated as a public assembly and, therefore, subject to law enforcement rules rather than the rules of armed conflict. |
|
Quoted:
You're opinion doesn't matter. The court is where this will be settled. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: Publish the set of rules after the fact? It would be akin to you being arrested and charged with a crime. What crime? Hold on, we need to write the law that we think you broke. Then it will go to court for which you are found innocent..still costs time and money. View Quote |
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.