More on the Acosta decision

This is one of those things that is oh so confusing for liberals. They simply don't understand how it is that a Trump appointee could rule against Trump. The expectations from the left, of course, is that Judges are just an extension of politics, and that it's a conservative Justice's job to vote in favor of Republicans, just as it's a liberal Justice's job to vote in favor of Democrats.

But in this case, as silly as it might seem to many, the Trump appointee did exactly what you would probably expect. Judge Kelly is a member of the D.C. Circuit. There was already a fairly solid (albeit not perfect) D.C. ruling previously made on this exact subject. Kelly made his ruling almost entirely based on that precedent.

The ruling did not (as some suggest) address the first amendment arguments made by CNN and Acosta. Rather it stuck strictly (as did the precedent) that these sorts of moves cannot be just be arbitrarily made, but rather must be made within the scope of some sort of set process and right of appeal. It was addressed entirely as a due process issue.

To be clear, no such process or right to appeal has ever existed. But I would expect that to change.

While Trump could appeal this to the D.C. Circuit court of appeals, it's unlikely (given the way that the ruling was written) that they would be successful. Their better option would be to create a new code of conduct for any and all reporters who come to these press conferences. They (for instance) could create a policy that demands that only Reporters who are called upon can ask questions, and that a Reporter who is asked a question can only ask a limited number of follow up question regarding the same subject. In fact, they could write this code of conduct with the obvious intention of preventing the exact behavior that Acosta is known for.

They could then create a process whereas those who violate the code of conduct is subject to a variety of disciplinary actions, such as a suspension of their pass for first offenses, a longer suspension for second offenses, leading up to a revocation of the pass for too many offenses. Reporters would know the rules, and understand the consequences. It would no longer be "legally" seen as an arbitrary decision.  Obviously they would have to allow for some sort of appeal policy (although it probably wouldn't have to be very robust). It would just have to exist.

Then they simply refuse to call on Acosta press conference after press conference. Effectively "freeze him out". They would simply wait for him to have his temper tantrum, then hit him with the disciplinary action. At this point I would doubt even CNN would bother fighting it in court.