Judge Napolitano Schools Fox Business Host on Jim Acosta Lawsuit: CNN Has a ‘Very Good Case’
Nov 14, 2018 05:21:54 #
Bad Bob
Loc: Virginia
https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-napolitano-schools-fox-business-host-on-jim-acosta-lawsuit-cnn-has-a-very-good-case?yptr=yahoo
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has a way of bursting his Trump-defending colleagues’ bubbles.
On Tuesday, during an appearance on Fox Business Network, Napolitano surprised host Stuart Varney by arguing that CNN has a “very good case” against the Trump administration when it comes to the company’s lawsuit over Jim Acosta’s White House access.
“The only grounds for revoking the pass are, 'Is the person a danger to the physical security of the president or his family?' And obviously, Acosta may have been an irritant to the president, but he was hardly a danger to him!" Napolitano said emphatically. “So I think CNN’s got a very good case. I think this will be resolved quickly.”
The analyst predicted that the case will likely be settled before it ever makes it to a jury trial. As Napolitano praised the language in the lawsuit about the value of a free press to help Americans “make free choices in the e*******l process,” Varney shot back, “Yeah, but not the freedom to make a circus out of something.”
“Apart from taking his credentials away, couldn’t they have just said, ‘You, out, you’re not coming in’?” Varney asked later, taking the administration’s side in the fight against press freedom.
Instead, Napolitano suggested that Trump and his team take a page out of President George W. Bush’s playbook and just not call on Acosta for a few days to let things calm down.
“You know, it’s part of the rough and tumble of the First Amendment,” he said. “Remember Jefferson: ‘I would rather have newspapers without government than a government without newspapers.’ A bit hyperbolic but you can understand the value of the free press to the Founders.”
Related in Arts and Culture
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has a way of bursting his Trump-defending colleagues’ bubbles.
On Tuesday, during an appearance on Fox Business Network, Napolitano surprised host Stuart Varney by arguing that CNN has a “very good case” against the Trump administration when it comes to the company’s lawsuit over Jim Acosta’s White House access.
“The only grounds for revoking the pass are, 'Is the person a danger to the physical security of the president or his family?' And obviously, Acosta may have been an irritant to the president, but he was hardly a danger to him!" Napolitano said emphatically. “So I think CNN’s got a very good case. I think this will be resolved quickly.”
The analyst predicted that the case will likely be settled before it ever makes it to a jury trial. As Napolitano praised the language in the lawsuit about the value of a free press to help Americans “make free choices in the e*******l process,” Varney shot back, “Yeah, but not the freedom to make a circus out of something.”
“Apart from taking his credentials away, couldn’t they have just said, ‘You, out, you’re not coming in’?” Varney asked later, taking the administration’s side in the fight against press freedom.
Instead, Napolitano suggested that Trump and his team take a page out of President George W. Bush’s playbook and just not call on Acosta for a few days to let things calm down.
“You know, it’s part of the rough and tumble of the First Amendment,” he said. “Remember Jefferson: ‘I would rather have newspapers without government than a government without newspapers.’ A bit hyperbolic but you can understand the value of the free press to the Founders.”
Related in Arts and Culture
Nov 14, 2018 10:54:14 #
Bad Bob wrote:
Napolitano seems increasingly to lean left in his opinions. Where are the grounds, he stated as being reasons for exclusion, enshrined? Which article of the Constitution says that press members are authorized to enter the home of the President without hinder as long as they do not threaten? This would deny the right of any homeowner to eject or ban those from his home, whom he considers to be objectionable in some manner.
Acosta is not the whole of the press. However he monopolizes most of the time allotted for such press conferences, with the President, and thus prevents the rest of the press and the American people from getting answers from the horse’s mouth, instead of sanitized press releases. His rude behavior is icing on the cake; it is the shutdown of legitimate questioning that is the primary reason for his ban. To allow Acosta to retain access denies 1st amendment rights to the rest of us.
Nov 14, 2018 11:18:11 #
Bad Bob wrote:
On the other hand....neither freedom of the press nor freedom of speech mean freedom of access:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/14/trump-win-cnn-lawsuit-constitution-his-side/
Snippet from the article:
"The White House is the president’s house. He lives there and sleeps there. Yes, it has offices, but the White House is not a department; it is not an agency created by Congress and subject to standard congressional oversight. It is, instead, the residence of the independently elected head of state, and those who work there do so as part of his household staff.
CNN and Acosta are asking a federal judge to give the president orders concerning whom he must allow into his home. The executive branch is a separate, coequal branch from the judicial branch. It would be as much of an insult for a federal judge to tell the president that he must allow someone into his living room as it would be for the president to order the Supreme Court regarding whom the justices must allow into their courtroom."
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.