You've no clue what you are talking about. The 5th amendment, whether or not a judge claims otherwise, has no bearing here whatsoballsout. Just like you don't know what you are talking about as to whether or not this was a temporary injunction. It was temporary. Finally the only decision I have been able to read is what was reported in the NY Times as the Fed Court is not releasing the transcript of proceedings for 90 days unless you go through an arduous process and pay for it. So basically, The Court is acting outside of the view of the American People.
Furthermore Coach, the ruling by the judge clearly violates the separation of powers clause of The United States Constitution.
--And it really doesn't matter except that the judiciary is further expanding it's intrusion into other branches powers. ----The White House will just add procedures and process of decorum for reporters and Acosta will be out soon again. ===or he won't get to ask questions. The Left has won absolutely NOTHING.
Wow...never seen someone so wrong opposite a conservative federal judge, several constitutional lawyers and even the Trump White House accepted the decision with no appeal as they are following the judges instructions. But you seem to have the unique view that must be right with your ability to ignore 150 years of due process constitutional precedent. Of course you have case law to back up your bullshit analysis which you displayed . Notice how no one is agreeing with you....think you might want to let this one go....
Could give two shits what the Left thinks they won. I dont represent them so all this was about is due process. However if you think the judiciary is not allowed to intrude in other powers well maybe you should pick up a book and read Marbury v. Madison and the 200 plus years of precedent... but I guess you know better than Harvard con law professors.
Noone agreeing with me is likely a good thing. I know what I am talking about. The Trump administration is just going along with it for show as they have other bigger fish to fry. They will use other means.
Found a good summary to teach you about checks and balances. What you know about constitutional law couldn't fill a sperm. The U.S. System of Checks and Balances Building on the ideas of Polybius, Montesquieu, William Blackstone, John Lockeand other philosophers and political scientists over the centuries, the framers of the U.S. Constitution divided the powers and responsibilities of the new federal government among three branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. In addition to this separation of powers, the framers built a system of checks and balances designed to guard against tyranny by ensuring that no branch would grab too much power. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” James Madisonwrote in the Federalist Papers, of the necessity for checks and balances. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Checks and Balances Examples Checks and balances operate throughout the U.S. government, as each branch exercises certain powers that can be checked by the powers given to the other two branches. The president (head of the executive branch) serves as commander in chief of the military forces, but Congress (legislative branch) appropriates funds for the military and votes to declare war. In addition, the Senate must ratify any peace treaties. Congress has the power of the purse, as it controls the money used to fund any executive actions. The president nominates federal officials, but the Senate confirms those nominations. Within the legislative branch, each house of Congress serves as a check on possible abuses of power by the other. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to pass a bill in the same form for it to become law. Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Supreme Court and other federal courts (judicial branch) can declare laws or presidential actions unconstitutional, in a process known as judicial review. In turn, the president checks the judiciary through the power of appointment, which can be used to change the direction of the federal courts By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court. Congress (considered the branch of government closest to the people) can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches. Checks and Balances in Action The system of checks and balances has been tested numerous times throughout the centuries since the Constitution was ratified. In particular, the power of the executive branch has expanded greatly since the 19th century, disrupting the initial balance intended by the framers. Presidential vetoes, and congressional overrides of those vetoes, tend to fuel controversy, as do congressional rejections of presidential appointments and judicial rulings against legislative or executive actions. Franklin D. Roosevelt to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. After winning reelection to his second term in office by a huge margin in 1936, FDR nonetheless faced the possibility that judicial review would undo many of his major policy achievements. From 1935-36, a conservative majority on the Court struck down more significant acts of Congress than any other time in U.S. history, including a key piece of the National Recovery Administration, the centerpiece of FDR’s New Deal. In February 1937, Roosevelt asked Congress to empower him to appoint an additional justice for any member of the Court over 70 years of age who did not retire, a move that could expand the Court to as many as 15 justices. Roosevelt’s proposal provoked the greatest battle to date among the three branches of government, and a number of Supreme Court justices considered resigning en masse in protest if the plan went through. In the end, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote an influential open letter to the Senate against the proposal; in addition, one older justice resigned, allowing FDR to replace him and shift the balance on the Court. The nation had narrowly averted a constitutional crisis, with the system of checks and balances left shaken but intact.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA