|
Post by celawson on Nov 16, 2018 11:25:29 GMT -5
It's not a ruling on the entire case. It's not a ruling on First Amendment rights. It's only a temporary restraining order while further hearings are held. Acosta gets his WH press pass back in the meantime. Yes, it's a good first victory for CNN, but the judge emphasized the limited nature of today's ruling. Now granted, I'M NO LAWYER. heh. But this seems to be a temporary "Yeah, you can go back into the WH until I rule further." sort of situation. Jeffrey Toobin said in an interview on CNN that this means the judge is requiring the WH to come up with rules that in the future will put a reporter at risk of losing his hard pass. www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cnn-trump-lawsuit-hearing/index.html
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 16, 2018 11:58:15 GMT -5
I'm surprised the ruling came down so fast. That's good, I guess. I'm not clear on what this will mean going forward, though. For one thing, I suppose Acosta will be getting the worst seat in the house at every future press conference, and I can't imagine he'll be getting many turns with the mic. Or then again--Trump being Trump--maybe it will be exactly the opposite: Trump giving Acosta a front row seat and the mic, just so there will be this constant sparring (which in my view isn't helpful at all). You know, you raise a really good point. One might wonder what would happen if he's treated badly, allowed in but a seat in the back corner and no mic time. Another lawsuit? In theory it might be justified, since it makes no sense that a reporter would be allowed in but treated separately and unequally. That said, I'd be less than happy at a sled-load of litigation because nailing down the edges of the first amendment is nigh impossible.
Also, this is something (imo) adults should be able to sort out at this point.
Adults? You're talking about adults sorting things out when one of those "adults" is Donald John Trump? It is to laugh.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 16, 2018 12:17:36 GMT -5
It's not a ruling on the entire case. It's not a ruling on First Amendment rights. It's only a temporary restraining order while further hearings are held. Acosta gets his WH press pass back in the meantime. Yes, it's a good first victory for CNN, but the judge emphasized the limited nature of today's ruling. Now granted, I'M NO LAWYER. heh. But this seems to be a temporary "Yeah, you can go back into the WH until I rule further." sort of situation. Jeffrey Toobin said in an interview on CNN that this means the judge is requiring the WH to come up with rules that in the future will put a reporter at risk of losing his hard pass. www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cnn-trump-lawsuit-hearing/index.html Well, his decision reflects his view that Trump absolutely violated the constitution by excluding him without due process. That's hardly something to be proud of, is it?
Also celawson, do you now concede that Acosta did not assault the intern as SHS said? And let me ask you a question about how we want our democracy to work: do you, as a citizen, want a president to be able to exclude a reporter for any reason he wants? I appreciate you don't like CNN or Acosta, but how would you have felt if Obama had excluded all Fox News reporters just cos? Forget the letter of the law, do you really want that to be a thing?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 16, 2018 12:18:58 GMT -5
It's not a ruling on the entire case. It's not a ruling on First Amendment rights. It's only a temporary restraining order while further hearings are held. Acosta gets his WH press pass back in the meantime. Yes, it's a good first victory for CNN, but the judge emphasized the limited nature of today's ruling. It's not supposed to be a ruling on the entire case. It was a ruling on an emergency injunction by CNN that the Trump White House was harming Jim Acosta's ability to do his job by taking away his hard pass. The lawsuit is still going through the legal pipeline.
What's unlimited is how you're going to try to spin this as meaning less than it does. Here, let me help ya with that. A fight is measured by rounds and in Round One, CNN and Acosta have clearly landed some pretty punishing body blows and head shots to Team Trump. It's not the end of the fight, but it's a damn good start for the protection of a free press.
Or if you prefer, Trump got pimp-slapped. HARD. I look forward to the forthcoming petulant Tweet storm from Putin's asset. Now granted, I'M NO LAWYER. heh. But this seems to be a temporary "Yeah, you can go back into the WH until I rule further." sort of situation. Yeah, it is. And that's all it is except Judge Kelly has ruled in Acosta's favor instead of the guy who appointed him and you know that's gonna chap Trump's ass. Yay for an independent judiciary!Jeffrey Toobin said in an interview on CNN that this means the judge is requiring the WH to come up with rules that in the future will put a reporter at risk of losing his hard pass. Which is what they SHOULD have done in the first place instead of just going off on Acosta because they don't like him. Trump and his thugs don't think the Rules apply to them.
They just got a harsh reminder how much they do.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 16, 2018 12:37:39 GMT -5
It's not a ruling on the entire case. It's not a ruling on First Amendment rights. It's only a temporary restraining order while further hearings are held. Acosta gets his WH press pass back in the meantime. Yes, it's a good first victory for CNN, but the judge emphasized the limited nature of today's ruling. Now granted, I'M NO LAWYER. heh. But this seems to be a temporary "Yeah, you can go back into the WH until I rule further." sort of situation. Jeffrey Toobin said in an interview on CNN that this means the judge is requiring the WH to come up with rules that in the future will put a reporter at risk of losing his hard pass. www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cnn-trump-lawsuit-hearing/index.html Well, his decision reflects his view that Trump absolutely violated the constitution by excluding him without due process. That's hardly something to be proud of, is it?
Also celawson, do you now concede that Acosta did not assault the intern as SHS said? And let me ask you a question about how we want our democracy to work: do you, as a citizen, want a president to be able to exclude a reporter for any reason he wants? I appreciate you don't like CNN or Acosta, but how would you have felt if Obama had excluded all Fox News reporters just cos? Forget the letter of the law, do you really want that to be a thing?
I absolutely concede Acosta did not assault the intern. Never thought he did. He even politely said "Pardon me, ma'am" while he held onto his mic. And no, I don't think a POTUS should be able to exclude a reporter because he's wearing an ugly tie, or because he/she asks tough questions. But I do think a POTUS should be able to exclude a reporter who doesn't yield his turn even after having two of his questions answered, and who has shown a long-time pattern of disruptive behavior that does not follow expected decorum. Should he be able to be excluded for singing Bohemian Rhapsody out loud while other reporters ask questions? I say yes. Do you? Do you agree there's a limit to what a reporter can and cannot do to disrupt press conferences? That's basically what he does - he makes statements meant to shame Trump rather than ask questions to obtain information, and he does this after his turn is up, preventing the next reporter's turn. The second part of that sentence is important. Trump has allowed him in all the press conferences until now, and he's called on him and answered his questions time and time again, even though Trump doesn't like him or his questions. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the WH to have decorum rules reporters should follow in the conferences, as well as consequences for not following them. And that seems to be what we're going to see after this is over. But what do I know? (Because - disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer.) BTW I actually DO agree with NT's post just above. I really do. And the reason I believe the final decision on the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment will be fair is because the GOP chooses judges who are impartial constitutionalists, which is absolutely more important than Trump winning here. Do I wish Acosta could remain banned? YES. Do I wish so at the expense of our Constitution? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 16, 2018 12:58:42 GMT -5
I guess the difference lies in how we expect reporters to behave. Where you see grand-standing and presidential harassment (the new thing, apparently, and I know you're not saying it here) I see an aggressive reporter not willing to just yield to a president who lies. I totally accept that this is an area where reasonable minds could differ. You and I are miles apart on two things, I think: how reporters may behave, and how Acosta HAS behaved. For me, I'm going to err on the side of the reporter.
Let me put this another way: when I hear the word "decorum" I hear you wanting reporters to accept what a president says and not push back. Am I right, or not? Hopefully not. If not, do you concede that Trump tells more untruths (aka lies) than any other president before him? If so, do you concede that a news reporter has a duty to push back and challenge him on those lies?
And yes, I will concede that there is absolutely a line, and I agree that singing Bohemiam Rhapsody would cross it. I would point out that (a) he's not doing that, and (b) that particular song would not suit Jim Acosta's more gentle baritone.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 16, 2018 13:03:25 GMT -5
Also, I need to call you out on your statement above: "I absolutely concede Acosta did not assault the intern. Never thought he did. He even politely said "Pardon me, ma'am" while he held onto his mic."
On Nov 7 you said: "He definitely touched her and pushed down forcefully with his arm."
Different words, maybe, but you placed fault on Acosta. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2018 13:39:30 GMT -5
Well, not every reporter gets mic time, as a matter of course. Acosta doesn't have a right to mic time, so I don't see how he could go to court over that. And while the seating chart has been determined by the WHCA, that's kinda just something Admins have allowed. I think the White House press secretary could easily assume control over that and there's little anyone could do about it. FYI, the current seating chart for the 49 reporters allowed in for press conferences: www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/06/30/conservative-outlets-gain-white-house-seats-240152Imagine the White House flipping CNN's and the Washington Examiner's seats...
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 16, 2018 13:45:57 GMT -5
Also, I need to call you out on your statement above: "I absolutely concede Acosta did not assault the intern. Never thought he did. He even politely said "Pardon me, ma'am" while he held onto his mic." On Nov 7 you said: "He definitely touched her and pushed down forcefully with his arm." Different words, maybe, but you placed fault on Acosta. Which is it? Yes, I did say that. But it was in response to Cass saying something like "he never laid a glove on her" or "he never touched her". He did absolutely touch her. I never said he assaulted her, and I don't think he did. I'm sure various people have different definitions of assault, though. But I certainly wouldn't call that assault. Someone could push down forcefully with their arm in a defensive posture, and I think did that, defending holding onto the mic, IMO. When I write "decorum", I am referring to not yielding one's turn, even after being given two questions, and then being told "You're done.", and then an intern coming for the mic. and still not yielding. Yes, reporters have a duty to push back on Trump's lies. But I think we can easily have a thread quoting some of these reporter's questions and we can see they are not simply pushing back on Trump's lies. They have an agenda, and it's not necessarily the full and unfettered truth. I have a strong opinion what that agenda is. You will likely disagree.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 16, 2018 15:46:01 GMT -5
Let me put this another way: when I hear the word "decorum" I hear you wanting reporters to accept what a president says and not push back. Am I right, or not? Hopefully not. If not, do you concede that Trump tells more untruths (aka lies) than any other president before him? If so, do you concede that a news reporter has a duty to push back and challenge him on those lies?When I write "decorum", I am referring to not yielding one's turn, even after being given two questions, and then being told "You're done.", and then an intern coming for the mic. and still not yielding. Yes, reporters have a duty to push back on Trump's lies. But I think we can easily have a thread quoting some of these reporter's questions and we can see they are not simply pushing back on Trump's lies. They have an agenda, and it's not necessarily the full and unfettered truth. I have a strong opinion what that agenda is. You will likely disagree. Yes, I do. Very much so and for the same reasons Cassandra and Mark disagreed with you so vehemently. You are entitled to express any opinion you like on anything you want to express it on. That's an absolute right as an American. Just know those who think they are informed and well-versed on a matter and profession will be called out by those that actually are. I look forward to your thread. I look forward to you ferreting out the nefarious agenda of these unprincipled scribes is if it not the full and unfettered truth. I look forward to your strong opinion of how the press is supposed to cover a White House full of leakers and liars. I will likely disagree.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 17, 2018 9:20:14 GMT -5
Perspectives on Acosta from former WH press secretaries: thehill.com/opinion/white-house/416966-former-press-secretaries-fleischer-mccurry-agree-on-acosta-behavior-iThe author of the piece sums up Acosta's shtick quite effectively (imo): The former press secretaries' opinions: Though McCurry also says this: I'm not sure if I agree with him, as I like the live briefings, so I can here stuff unfiltered. Yet he does have a point about the consequences of it being live. Anyway, I note this stuff not to justify Trump's move, but rather to note that going forward, Acosta still seems like he's in a tough position (due to his own need for the spotlight, no doubt). Who is going to call on him, whether a given briefing is by Trump or anyone else in the Admin? And if he still seeks the spotlight by shouting out questions and comments--which is exactly what I think he will do--might the live briefings become a thing of the past? I appreciate the fact that Acosta's colleagues, including ones at Fox, supported his lawsuit (though to be fair, there was a fair amount of self-interest there), but I'm wondering if that support will hold up if Acosta's antics impact their collective ability to broadcast briefings.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 17, 2018 13:22:48 GMT -5
Yeah, it might be tome for some of his colleagues to have a quiet talk with him. He's on the moral high ground, be a shame to cede it now.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 19, 2018 14:28:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 19, 2018 20:57:14 GMT -5
It's not a ruling on the entire case. It's not a ruling on First Amendment rights. It's only a temporary restraining order while further hearings are held. Acosta gets his WH press pass back in the meantime. Yes, it's a good first victory for CNN, but the judge emphasized the limited nature of today's ruling. Now granted, I'M NO LAWYER. heh. But this seems to be a temporary "Yeah, you can go back into the WH until I rule further." sort of situation. Jeffrey Toobin said in an interview on CNN that this means the judge is requiring the WH to come up with rules that in the future will put a reporter at risk of losing his hard pass. www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cnn-trump-lawsuit-hearing/index.html I could be wrong on this, but when granting a TRO, don't judges sometimes take into account whether or not the suit would survive on the merits?
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 20, 2018 10:46:40 GMT -5
I could be wrong on this, but when granting a TRO, don't judges sometimes take into account whether or not the suit would survive on the merits?
You are not at all wrong. That is precisely one of the elements they look at when granting a TRO.
|
|