According to legal analyst and talk radio host, Mark Levin, “The Great One,” CNN’s lawsuit against the White House over pulling Jim Acosta’s “hard pass,” could be headed to he Supreme Court.
This comes after Jim Acosta got into a heated match with President Trump and refused to turn over the microphone to a White House aide during a news conference.
Mark Levin feels the courts should stay out of the White House-CNN war, but pointed out a significance in CNN’s hiring of an established Supreme Court litigator, Ted Olson.
He called the suit “ridiculous,” but said it “could” end up before the high court if it gets the approval from a liberal judge appointed by Presidents Obama or Clinton.
On Facebook Levin wrote, “I just read CNN’s lawsuit against the administration over Jim Acosta. It’s a very weak case, but if they get before an Obama or Clinton district judge, who knows.”
He added that there is no constitutional right to a “hard pass,” and that the case should end over that alone. But in hiring Olson, the network is playing a political game that could end up in the Supreme Court. (Article Continues Below)
Mark Levin wrote: “CNN hired Ted Olson’s firm, and he has signed onto the lawsuit. Olson was hired for a few reasons:
1. As a former Reagan official and lawyer for Bush in Bush-Gore, CNN hopes to make the PR case that this a bipartisan matter; 2. CNN hopes to make the PR case that it is upholding the Constitution against a rogue administration; and, 3. CNN has employed a top Supreme Court litigator.”
(Related: Network Drops Lawsuit On The White House, Sarah Sanders Instantly Fires Back) (Article Continues Below)
Mark Levin’s Official Statement:
“I just read CNN’s lawsuit against the administration over Jim Acosta. It’s a very weak case, but if they get before an Obama or Clinton district judge, who knows. CNN hired Ted Olson’s firm, and he has signed onto the lawsuit. Olson was hired for a few reasons: 1. As a former Reagan official and lawyer for Bush in Bush-Gore, CNN hopes to make the PR case that this a bipartisan matter; 2. CNN hopes to make the PR case that it is upholding the Constitution against a rogue administration; and, 3. CNN has employed a top Supreme Court litigator.
Nonetheless, it is a ridiculous suit. CNN still has reporters at the White House and in the presidential press conferences; Acosta does not have a constitutional right to be physically present in the press room, anymore than the scores of media outlets that do not; Acosta can watch the press conference from outside the White House grounds as they are televised; the president cannot be compelled by any court to actually call on any particular reporter during a press conference; Acosta does not have a constitutional right to disrupt the press conference with his various antics anymore than any other reporter; and, a president is not constitutionally compelled to hold a presidential press conference. The courts should stay out of this on separation of powers grounds, among other things. No one is preventing Acosta from reporting or CNN from broadcasting.”
(Continued below)
