accoster
so with the policy making judges ruling that this prick HAS to be reinstated then does that mean that ALL "reporters" shall be given access to the White House press room ????? if i was labeled a "reporter" from the Weekly Wipe here in tiny Jackass Flats that means i have a "RIGHT" to be seated ????? i am tired of judges blatantly functioning in the other 2 TWO branches of govt.....
0
-
They should just limit the invites to journalists only. That would eliminate Acosta by default. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And here I thought you were a fan of the constitution.
POTUS is a government employee, not the king.
You should try actually reading the constitution some time. It might be insightful in instances such as these.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
Criticizing and name calling military veterans here that you know nothing about is one thing, now you find it appropriate to disrespect the President? I sincerely believe you are here on this forum for the wrong reasons and/or you are bi-polar and really need professional help. [B)]
That is your opinion and you are wrong. Just because you "imagine" something does not make it true.
You still haven't answered my earlier question, so nothing you have to say means squat to any rational person. Are you a traitor or a commie?
And yet you still can't discern the difference between respect and your childish behavior. So sad.
Shouldn't you be donning your antifa mask and harassing the good people of the USA in person? Maybe you can lock arms with the Accoster, since you think everything he said and did was appropriate in YOUR eyes.
Please remove me from the space I occupy in your head and put a "VACANT" sign there, OK?0 -
BINGO MAGOO. 0 -
Black or white, left or right, up or down, green or yellow..... If Acosta acted liked that in front of the Judge that appealed his decision, how do you think that he would react if it was not in favor of him? Would the judge allow him to run his mouth, or would he tell him to shut up, or hold him in contempt if he disagreed with anything? 0 -
Just do away with the press conferences all together. They're held as a courtesy anyway. Once a week issue a press release and be done with it. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
His freedom of speech was not infringed. He was not imprisoned or charged with a crime. He was free to write or say what ever he wished. He was simply told his behavior was not appropriate for that setting and not to come back.
It was not a constitutional issue and in no way impaired the free press or his right to express his opinions. The man was simply being held accountable for his inappropriate actions. Heaven forbid a man that acts inappropriately would have to be held responsible.
It was not a constitutional issue.
Did you read the court opinion ?
The opinion basically says due process wasn't followed. But, due process for what? He was not charged and/or convicted of a crime, his processions were not seized, his personal or company premises were not searched. He certainly has not had his right to free speech violated, he can say or write what ever he chooses.
I can't see where the courts opinion is relevant to the issue and I can not see where due process wasn't followed as there was not government action that infringed on his right as a US citizen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
His freedom of speech was not infringed. He was not imprisoned or charged with a crime. He was free to write or say what ever he wished. He was simply told his behavior was not appropriate for that setting and not to come back.
It was not a constitutional issue and in no way impaired the free press or his right to express his opinions. The man was simply being held accountable for his inappropriate actions. Heaven forbid a man that acts inappropriately would have to be held responsible.
It was not a constitutional issue.
Did you read the court opinion ?
The opinion basically says due process wasn't followed. But, due process for what? He was not charged and/or convicted of a crime, his processions were not seized, his personal or company premises were not searched. He certainly has not had his right to free speech violated, he can say or write what ever he chooses.
I can't see where the courts opinion is relevant to the issue and I can not see where due process wasn't followed as there was not government action that infringed on his right as a US citizen.
Exactly.0 -
I read this thread last night amd decided to look at the press conferences and how they evolved. Nowhere could I find that this is mandatory, it is mearly tradition that started in the 1800s and over the course of time became what it is today.
So, there is nothing in the constitution that says White House Press briefings are mandatory or protected. Nowhere does it say reporters must be let in, nothing says the President or his staff must communicate with the press so by doing so they are extending courtesy.
So when this ass clown was kicked out there was no legal meaning for his forced acceptance back inside, the White House can kick them all out and there is not one legal definition to counter.
Acosta was rude, self important, arrogant and very unprofessional. His court ruling is nothing more than the liberal left using liberal judges to get thier own way much in the same manner as a child asking Grandma to override Mommy.0 -
What's ultimately interesting in this case is that there were no rulings on the merit of Acosta being ousted. Only that there needed to be a ruling on it.[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
I read this thread last night amd decided to look at the press conferences and how they evolved. Nowhere could I find that this is mandatory, it is mearly tradition that started in the 1800s and over the course of time became what it is today.
So, there is nothing in the constitution that says White House Press briefings are mandatory or protected. Nowhere does it say reporters must be let in, nothing says the President or his staff must communicate with the press so by doing so they are extending courtesy.
So when this ass clown was kicked out there was no legal meaning for his forced acceptance back inside, the White House can kick them all out and there is not one legal definition to counter.
Acosta was rude, self important, arrogant and very unprofessional. His court ruling is nothing more than the liberal left using liberal judges to get thier own way much in the same manner as a child asking Grandma to override Mommy.
heh heh heh.....
You do understand that the judge in the case is a Trump appointment, and confirmed by a republican senate, do you not ?
And is everyone who we think they are? Repubs voted for several liberal judges in over the last decade, even a SC Justice. Hell Repubs voted in this unconstitutional BS electronic tracking of trucks and you think I trust them 100%. Look at a few ither Trump appointees and those that voted for them and they wound up being flops.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
I read this thread last night amd decided to look at the press conferences and how they evolved. Nowhere could I find that this is mandatory, it is mearly tradition that started in the 1800s and over the course of time became what it is today.
So, there is nothing in the constitution that says White House Press briefings are mandatory or protected. Nowhere does it say reporters must be let in, nothing says the President or his staff must communicate with the press so by doing so they are extending courtesy.
So when this ass clown was kicked out there was no legal meaning for his forced acceptance back inside, the White House can kick them all out and there is not one legal definition to counter.
Acosta was rude, self important, arrogant and very unprofessional. His court ruling is nothing more than the liberal left using liberal judges to get thier own way much in the same manner as a child asking Grandma to override Mommy.
heh heh heh.....
You do understand that the judge in the case is a Trump appointment, and confirmed by a republican senate, do you not ?
And is everyone who we think they are? Repubs voted for several liberal judges in over the last decade, even a SC Justice. Hell Repubs voted in this unconstitutional BS electronic tracking of trucks and you think I trust them 100%. Look at a few ither Trump appointees and those that voted for them and they wound up being flops.
Considering that the US Senate confirmed him 94-2, I think it's more than likely he's at least a some time tool of the left.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
I read this thread last night amd decided to look at the press conferences and how they evolved. Nowhere could I find that this is mandatory, it is mearly tradition that started in the 1800s and over the course of time became what it is today.
So, there is nothing in the constitution that says White House Press briefings are mandatory or protected. Nowhere does it say reporters must be let in, nothing says the President or his staff must communicate with the press so by doing so they are extending courtesy.
So when this ass clown was kicked out there was no legal meaning for his forced acceptance back inside, the White House can kick them all out and there is not one legal definition to counter.
Acosta was rude, self important, arrogant and very unprofessional. His court ruling is nothing more than the liberal left using liberal judges to get thier own way much in the same manner as a child asking Grandma to override Mommy.
heh heh heh.....
You do understand that the judge in the case is a Trump appointment, and confirmed by a republican senate, do you not ?
And is everyone who we think they are? Repubs voted for several liberal judges in over the last decade, even a SC Justice. Hell Repubs voted in this unconstitutional BS electronic tracking of trucks and you think I trust them 100%. Look at a few ither Trump appointees and those that voted for them and they wound up being flops.
Considering that the US Senate confirmed him 94-2, I think it's more than likely he's at least a some time tool of the left.
Yep and also don?t forget not all Repubs like Trump, there are many in the right who hate him as much as the left does and will take any opprotunity to stab Trump in the back. It?s a shame really, Acostas only job is to humiliate, decieve and smear the president. Him getting back is has not a damned thing to do with law, it is purely a political stunt aimed at nothing more than another gross attempt at Smearing the president. And ol boy Barz is right here to defend the left making them look like poor victims of that big mean man in the White House. Ya know, the mkre they hate him the more I like him.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Poor old Donald, he's such a victim.
Nothing is ever his fault.
How unsurprising you would stick up for Acosta's rude behaviour.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Poor old Donald, he's such a victim.
Nothing is ever his fault.
Which has nothing to do with the point I am making. This BS should have never taken up federal court time or my tax dollars. Who the president is shouldn't matter and this issue isn't about the president. It is about a liberal out of control media pulling the strings of this country and sucking dollars and energy that should be spent elsewhere. The reporter acted acted like a prick and he was treated like the prick he is. The country should have cheered, instead it went to court.0 -
Here, they are ready for him 
0 -
ABSOLUTELY PERFECT>>>>>>>>>!!!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Poor old Donald, he's such a victim.
Nothing is ever his fault.
Which has nothing to do with the point I am making. This BS should have never taken up federal court time or my tax dollars. Who the president is shouldn't matter and this issue isn't about the president. It is about a liberal out of control media pulling the strings of this country and sucking dollars and energy that should be spent elsewhere. The reporter acted acted like a prick and he was treated like the prick he is. The country should have cheered, instead it went to court.
Since it was not a response to something you said, it would not need to be.
The point, as the judge has so far ruled, is a re-confirmation of the Sherrill decision. Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
?notice . . . of the factual bases for denial [of access to White House press facilities] with an
opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is . . . [not] based on
arbitrary or less than compelling reasons.? Id. at 131.
Due process requires a process, not simply doctored video, name calling, and theatrics.
And two ?wrongs? don?t make a ?right?.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
48 comments