task0778
Diamond Member
Some things to consider:
1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.
2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.
3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.
4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.
5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.
For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.
1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.
2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.
3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.
4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.
5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.
For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.
Last edited: