Posted on 11/14/2018 6:31:45 PM PST by Innovative
The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides ended with the judge saying that he would rule on Thursday.
CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments. Their lawyers are asking for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his pass right away. They also want the administration's action deemed unconstitutional. CNN and Acosta filed suit on Tuesday. The case was assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Exactly...Acosta can say whatever he wants whenever he wants to exercise his 1st Amendments rights...Just NOT at the White House...It is not his speech that is prohibited, it's his presence...
Exactly...Acosta can say whatever he wants whenever he wants to exercise his 1st Amendments rights...Just NOT at the White House...It is not his speech that is prohibited, it's his presence...
Injunction vs final case...which will be appealed and likely end up in SCOTUS.
It isn’t a case of frivolous. It _is_ a case of:
_no_ jurisdiction; what so ever. A court that makes a ruling wherein they haven’t got legal authority, is breaking the law. Judges decide cases based on law. If there is no legislated law covering the case, then there is no case, no remedy, no jurisdiction.
Law is created by the legislative branch, only.
Law is not created by judicial precedence.
Jail for judges who decide a case without any law.
There goes a thousand years of the rule of law.
You really do not want to go there. Judges would have no independence, which is required in the Constitution. Who judges the judges?
We have the impeachment option, almost never used.
“I love that this is going to blow up so spectacularly in CNN’s face.”
Don’t be too sure of that. The administration’s lawyers did NOT say the revocation was due — in whole or in part — to Acosta’s bad behavior at the presser (i.e., not relinquishing the microphone; brushing away the intern when she tried to retrieve it; bogarting the presser so that others could not ask questions). Rather, they argued on first amendment grounds, that the revocation of Acosta’s press pass was not a violation of his first amendment rights. That may not fly. I expect the judge to issue a stay on the revocation, and order the administration to give Acosta back his press pass, at least on a temporary basis.
The administration did NOT argue against Acosta’s conduct. It argued on first amendment grounds.
Well, if the Executive branch can’t keep out the press, neither can the Judicial. Sucks to be SCOTUS.
But more importantly, any judge holding for Accoster’s position of a right to confront government has also opened the Courts to the same level of responsiveness. There should be no ability of the courts to exclude television cameras or live reportage during trials and hearings and arguments. The courts, after all, are an equally accountable branch of government.
Yes of course, but that does not guarantee anything.
We should know very soon..... if this judge is sane.
I’m “concerned” that the judge will rule in favor of CNN in order to not appear to be a “Trump Toady”.
Hopefully, sanity will rule.
it seems to be the end of “thursday”. what’s the ruling?
Ditto...what's up ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.