Breaking- Federal Judge orders WH to reinstate Acosta's Press Pass

[Frank Cannon]

Does this judge also realize the precedent and can of worms he's unleashed on society in general?

Disruptors now have more rights in venues, meetings, hearings, etc., than sane bystanders.

If Antifa puts out a newsletter now they will have an argument for full access to the WH.

If I were Trump I would just have Sanders pass out talking points memos in the room and walk out.

[GrouchoTex]

The government "gave" him the pass, a physical item.
To take it away, the court would argue that their should be a process to remove that pass, once granted.
I don't agree with this, but I think that is the position they are taking.
Think of it like being fired, with getting previous warnings, or write-ups, etc.
More like a labor board issue than a 1st amendment issue.
Again, I don't agree, because he hasn't lost his job, he was just "demoted" which happens in the real world, too.

[Cyber Liberty]

If Antifa puts out a newsletter now they will have an argument for full access to the WH.

If I were Trump I would just have Sanders pass out talking points memos in the room and walk out.

Trump or Sanders would be fools if they ever call on Accostya again.

[Cyber Liberty]

The government "gave" him the pass, a physical item.
To take it away, the court would argue that their should be a process to remove that pass, once granted.
I don't agree with this, but I think that is the position they are taking.
Think of it like being fired, with getting previous warnings, or write-ups, etc.
More like a labor board issue than a 1st amendment issue.
Again, I don't agree, because he hasn't lost his job, he was just "demoted" which happens in the real world, too.

It's the "once granted" part that's the problem.  The Press Office should set up a system like those used by corporations to discipline disruptive employees.  The court seems to have made this a "due-process" issue.

[GrouchoTex]

It's the "once granted" part that's the problem.  The Press Office should set up a system like those used by corporations to discipline disruptive employees.  The court seems to have made this a "due-process" issue.

I agree.

[Elderberry]

The case is Sherrill v. Knight, decided in 1977 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It’s still good law in the district where CNN filed its suit, to which the White House is supposed to respond by 11 a.m. Wednesday, according to an order from Timothy Kelly, a former attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee who was named by Trump to the federal bench last year.

In the 1977 case, the court found that denial of White House credentials was a sufficiently grave infringement on the freedom of the press that it couldn’t just be done by fiat. It required, at the very least, “notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond” and “a final written statement of the reasons for denial.” Notably, the court prohibited “content-based criteria for press pass issuance.”

The critical finding, according to Mark H. Lynch of Covington & Burling, who argued the case before the D.C. Circuit, was this: Given the “important First Amendment rights implicated by refusal to grant White House press passes to bona fide Washington journalists,” as the court held, “such refusal must be based on a compelling governmental interest.”

From prior post:

 Can CNN beat the White House in court? Look to the case of a loner journalist named Robert Sherrill.
« on: November 14, 2018, 09:19:58 PM »
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,340360.msg1845764.html#msg1845764

[Cyber Liberty]

The case is Sherrill v. Knight, decided in 1977 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It’s still good law in the district where CNN filed its suit, to which the White House is supposed to respond by 11 a.m. Wednesday, according to an order from Timothy Kelly, a former attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee who was named by Trump to the federal bench last year.

In the 1977 case, the court found that denial of White House credentials was a sufficiently grave infringement on the freedom of the press that it couldn’t just be done by fiat. It required, at the very least, “notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond” and “a final written statement of the reasons for denial.” Notably, the court prohibited “content-based criteria for press pass issuance.”

The critical finding, according to Mark H. Lynch of Covington & Burling, who argued the case before the D.C. Circuit, was this: Given the “important First Amendment rights implicated by refusal to grant White House press passes to bona fide Washington journalists,” as the court held, “such refusal must be based on a compelling governmental interest.”

From prior post:

 Can CNN beat the White House in court? Look to the case of a loner journalist named Robert Sherrill.
« on: November 14, 2018, 09:19:58 PM »
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,340360.msg1845764.html#msg1845764

Keeping order in the Pressers is a compelling government interest, the White House just needs to document what they are doing. 

[massadvj]

If the POTUS does not have the authority to deternine who does and does not have a press pass, then the POTUS has no authority at all.  The office offers illusory power at best.

[aligncare]

My understanding is the federal judge emphasized in his ruling that the decision was based solely on grounds of denial of due process, 5th amendment issues, and NOT the denial of first amendment protections.

[Cyber Liberty]

My understanding is the federal judge emphasized in his ruling that the decision was based solely on grounds of denial of due process, 5th amendment issues, and NOT the denial of first amendment protections.

A problem easily remedied.  Just list all the times Accostya disrupted Pressers, then write him a nice letter.  Problem solved.  Meanwhile, make his presence irrelevant by refusing to acknowledge him.

[Bigun]

If I were president this Judge would have already learned the meaning of the words "go pound sand"!

[Cyber Liberty]

If I were president this Judge would have already learned the meaning of the words "go pound sand"!

It's a pity you aren't because the President we have appears to have caved.  Let's see how Sanders deals with the little puke...

[Machiavelli]

In retrospect, I think it was a bad move to revoke his pass. Instead, I think they should have given him a suspension - a time out, say for one or two weeks.

[Jazzhead]

Let him in while this percolates through the courts.  But never let him have the mic.  If he just grabs it again, shut the mic off and declare the Presser over.  That screws the whole Press gallery.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.

That's how you do it.   Say "this press conference is over" and walk away.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Ridiculous.

Does anyone know how the judge linked this to the First Amendment? I'd love to hear it.

BTW Trump appointed him.

It actually wasn't linked to the First Amendment - the Judge expressly declined to rule on that basis.

It was linked to the Fifth Amendment -- deprivation of a government issued press pass.  The judge basically said "they may ultimately be able to deny him a press pass, but they have to follow a process for doing so."

[Cyber Liberty]

In retrospect, I think it was a bad move to revoke his pass. Instead, I think they should have given him a suspension - a time out, say for one or two weeks.

I wouldn't call it a "bad move."  It illustrates what a so-called reformer is up against.

The Judge has pointed the way to what needs to be done with Accostya, let's see what Sanders does with it.  Give him a "process" and sack him again.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Keeping order in the Pressers is a compelling government interest, the White House just needs to document what they are doing.

They simply need clear rules, and to post them. If they had them, and booted Acosta for violating those rules, it wouldn't have been a problem.

Among other things, "refusing to relinquish the microphone when asked", "refusing to keep quiet in the pressroom when asked by the Secretary", etc..

[Cyber Liberty]

They simply need clear rules, and to post them. If they had them, and booted Acosta for violating those rules, it wouldn't have been a problem.

Among other things, "refusing to relinquish the microphone when asked", "refusing to keep quiet in the pressroom when asked by the Secretary", etc..

Yup.  Post clear rules and document infractions.  When the documentation piles up, that person is gone (with a nice letter).  That's how it's done in the corporate world.

[XenaLee]

I don't see why Trump can't just not call on Acosta.... ever.  If Acosta can't act like a grownup, civil reporter.... then let him suffer those consequences and let it be a lesson to the other "journalists".

[XenaLee]

Yup.  Post clear rules and document infractions.  When the documentation piles up, that person is gone (with a nice letter).  That's how it's done in the corporate world.

Then again... in the corporate world.... if you acted like a complete azz and disrespected the CEO of ANY corporation like Acosta did with Trump... you would be fired and escorted out of the door by security guards.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't see why Trump can't just not call on Acosta.... ever.  If Acosta can't act like a grownup, civil reporter.... then let him suffer those consequences and let it be a lesson to the other "journalists".

Well, they can refuse to call on him.  But it also makes sense to have published rules for when Acosta or anyone else gets out of line.  Trump said that's exactly what they're going to do -- draft rules, post them, and hold journalists to them.  Probably not something the press as a whole wants, but...they asked for it.

Fox News this afternoon aired an excerpt of President Donald Trump‘s big interview with Chris Wallace, in which POTUS reacted to a Federal judge’s ruling against the White House on Jim Acosta‘s press credential.

Trump told Wallace it’s “not a big deal,” saying, “What they said, though, is that we have to create rules and regulations for conduct… we’re doing that, we’re going to write them up right now. It’s not a big deal. And if he misbehaves, we’ll throw him out or we’ll stop the news conference.”

Wallace asked him exactly what the rules are going to be.

Trump just said there are “rules of decorum” and reporters can’t keep asking questions.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/

[Cyber Liberty]

Then again... in the corporate world.... if you acted like a complete azz and disrespected the CEO of ANY corporation like Acosta did with Trump... you would be fired and escorted out of the door by security guards.

You'd be surprised about that....

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't see why Trump can't just not call on Acosta.... ever.  If Acosta can't act like a grownup, civil reporter.... then let him suffer those consequences and let it be a lesson to the other "journalists".

If the President or Sanders calls on him again they're fools.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, they can refuse to call on him.  But it also makes sense to have published rules for when Acosta or anyone else gets out of line.  Trump said that's exactly what they're going to do -- draft rules, post them, and hold journalists to them.  Probably not something the press as a whole wants, but...they asked for it.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/

From the linked article:

[Trump:] "I’ll say, ‘Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate you coming.’ And I’ll leave. And those reporters will not be too friendly to whoever it is that’s acting up.”

So far...so good.

[XenaLee]

Well, they can refuse to call on him.  But it also makes sense to have published rules for when Acosta or anyone else gets out of line.  Trump said that's exactly what they're going to do -- draft rules, post them, and hold journalists to them.  Probably not something the press as a whole wants, but...they asked for it.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/

Exactly.   And the other journalists.... the ones that did NOT act like complete jackazzes... know who to blame for these new rules/consequences.  That's justice.