After all, if they are so trivial that a buffoon get to interrupt them as he pleases, they can’t be important enough to hold.

The “press” then has the “freedom” to write ANYTHING THEY WANT regarding the release or anything else.

NO MORE PRESS CONFERENCES.

Of course, the President always has the right to grant an exclusive interview with anyone he chooses.

https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/11/16/judge-cnns-acosta-gets-press-pass-back-underlying-1st-amendment-issue-not-ruled-on/

“Is it seriously in the judge’s mind that the only way to protect Fifth Amendment rights is to publish rules of behavior for every such event, affirmatively ensure there’s evidence that everyone knows what they are, and then go through some specialized “due process” ritual for removing people who scream and act out?

You know leftist activists as well as I do. That will be the only standard that would keep them from prevailing in lawsuits. But it’s a prohibitive standard, one that simply makes town halls and other forms of public access to government officials less frequent and less likely for everyone.

This reinstatement ruling is not one we should be comfortable with. Unless the entire Fifth Amendment argument is overruled as the case moves forward, this problem of the badly behaved ruining things for everyone else will metastasize. When you have to start writing rules because people don’t voluntarily adhere to universal social custom, harmony evaporates and the opportunity for useful, positive group interactions shrinks drastically. Accommodating the badly behaved instead of ejecting them quickly limits what everyone can do as a group. We all know how that works — from our days in grade school.

The second observation is that, if there’s a basis for arguing that Fifth Amendment rights aren’t really at issue here, there is also a remedy for the problem of judges ruling as if they are. Congress has the constitutional authority to limit what the federal courts can rule on. Perhaps it would be a good idea to consider doing that. For starters, I’m not a fan at all of a judge being able to order the reinstatement of any kind of pass suspended by one of the co-equal federal branches. We are sitting still for too much of this; it is improper, period, to see federal judges as the final arbiters of every question, whether in government or any other aspect of life.
…Should it really be necessary to develop a special, dedicated due process for removing unruly people from events in the White House? What kind of absurd mindset about law’s nature and purpose have we entered, when the absence of such a regulatory package is held to endanger Fifth Amendment rights?”

From WWD commenter:
Ed Cross III • 4 hours ago
Had Acosta spoken like that to Obama, CNN would have fired him that afternoon and his career would be over.

* * *
Not much to add to that, except it’s interesting to see some people saying the judge shafted Trump and the Constitution, and others that the judge gave Trump a back-handed win.
Note to the Trump is Hitler crowd: Hitler never agreed to follow a judge’s ruling that went against him (if indeed there ever was a judge who had the temerity to issue one).

I do agree that, if the President doesn’t like the incivility, he has every right to leave, but that the Precious Press will then pout about it.

Yes, letting the inmates run the asylum always works out well…

Yeah, all Trump has to do is stare at Acosta and Acosta will stop his bad behavior… right. BTW, that’s not “pretty silly”, it’s appalling ignorant of the media’s motivations. News flash! Those ‘reporters’ are there to attack Trump not to honestly report on the Trump administration’s statements. Acosta is just more upfront about his hostility to Trump.

“The law tends not to look kindly on people who can’t stop their own mouths.”

It was Acosta who couldn’t stop his mouth not Trump. Yet the ‘judge’ ruled in favor of Acosta, inventing ‘law’ out of whole cloth. More of that ‘penumbra’ of the law leftist/liberal judges are so fond of citing.