Prosecutor suspended by DeSantis testifies as lawsuit begins: ‘It is important for me to speak out’

[HARK!]

No, it doesn't. Abortions in Texas. Aren't old enough to be a baby.

No what doesn't? You're response is non sequitur.

See post #25.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What Warren did was sign an open letter pledging not to prosecute certain crimes. That doesn't constitute a blanket policy, as it is not an official directive to his office. And because no such cases had crossed his desk, he had no opportunities to demonstrate a policy via his actions. IMO, DeSantis would only have had grounds to fire him - as an elected official - had he actually demonstrated the alleged blanket policy, or at least officially communicated it to the office.

How is that not a blanket policy with regards to Florida's new laws?

This isn't much different than when blue states have passed new gun control legislation, and conservative leaning Sheriffs have pledged not to enforce them...or when county clerks in red states have declared they're weren't going to issue certain marriage licenses.

 

[Larniavc]

Does Warren believe that killing babies is a low level crime?

Have you stopped conflating babies with foetuses, yet?

 

[DaisyDay]

DeSantis may have had grounds but he did not have the authority; what he did was unconstitutional.

Sadly it appears that Warren has no remedy for this power grab by DeSantis.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sadly it appears that Warren has no remedy for this power grab by DeSantis.

No federal remedy. Nothing prevents him from pursuing this in state courts, and if the state judge comes to the same conclusion as the federal one, she could provide such remedy.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

How is that not a blanket policy with regards to Florida's new laws?

It's not an official or binding statement, or a directive to the office.

This isn't much different than when blue states have passed new gun control legislation, and conservative leaning Sheriffs have pledged not to enforce them...or when county clerks in red states have declared they're weren't going to issue certain marriage licenses.

Nope, not too different. However, I'm not aware of any cases of elected sheriffs or clerks being fired simply for making those statements. In the most famous instance, Kim Davis actually denied a marriage license to a gay couple and was sued. In the end, she was issued a court order to fulfill her duties, refused, and was jailed for contempt of court. After serving her jail sentence, she served out the remainder of her elected term (she lost her bid for re-election in 2018).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not aware of any cases of elected sheriffs or clerks being fired simply for making those statements.

Perhaps having the fortitude to actually take action against people threatening to neglect their duty is the kind of thing that's making DeSantis more popular and his progressive counterparts should take note?

Regardless of how one feels about the tactic, there's no doubt that if Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon would've done the same to the Oregon Sheriffs who were declaring their intent to ignore the new gun laws, she'd probably be a darling of the Democratic party right now.

One can question the strategy, but there's no ignoring the results. DeSantis put up some impressive numbers in the 2022 election and turned solid Blue areas Red. I suspect Democrats could do the same if they played a little hardball from time to time.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Perhaps having the fortitude to actually take action against people threatening to neglect their duty is the kind of thing that's making DeSantis more popular and his progressive counterparts should take note?

Perhaps. I don't think it's a question of fortitude though - this judge seems to think that DeSantis violated state law in firing Warren. We shall see what the state court says.

Regardless of how one feels about the tactic, there's no doubt that if Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon would've done the same to the Oregon Sheriffs who were declaring their intent to ignore the new gun laws, she'd probably be a darling of the Democratic party right now.

Democrats are hardly as united in their distaste for guns as Republicans are in their hatred of abortion. I highly doubt that would be the outcome.

One can question the strategy, but there's no ignoring the results. DeSantis put up some impressive numbers in the 2022 election and turned solid Blue areas Red. I suspect Democrats could do the same if they played a little hardball from time to time.

I wouldn't call firing elected officials "hardball". That's approaching tyranny. Elected officials are elected by their constituents. Should their constituents be displeased with those officials, they usually have means of getting rid of them electorally (recall, impeachment, etc). The governor unilaterally dismissing an elected official ignores the will of the voters who elected that official.

ETA: DeSantis is popular because he keeps himself in the news pulling political stunts that please the Republican base. Firing Warren, revoking Disney's right to govern their own "town", anti-mask mandates, pushing bills that restrict the LGBT community, etc. He basically took Trump's successful populist formula from 2016 and got rid of the off-putting crudeness. Plus, because he's working from a position of actual political power in a politically friendly environment, he can actually do the things that he says he'll do.

 

[HARK!]

Have you stopped conflating babies with foetuses, yet?

Unborn babies are babies.

 

[Larniavc]

Unborn babies are babies.

No they are not.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Democrats are hardly as united in their distaste for guns as Republicans are in their hatred of abortion. I highly doubt that would be the outcome.

From a national perspective, there may be a little bit of truth to that, there are still some Democrats in southern states who are much more gun-friendly. However, Oregon isn't "national". On a state level, they're much more progressive and more united on that issue. Evidenced by the fact that the people they chose to elect put forth such a bill, and the governor they elected signed it into law.

And even on a national level, I'd challenge your assertion just a bit based on polling data.

Per FiveThirtyEight, Among Democrats:
91% support universal background checks
83% support banning "assault-style" weapons
87% support stricter handgun laws


Compared to the Republican stance on abortion (per Gallup):
36% of Republicans identified as "pro-choice"
56% of Republicans agreed that abortion should be legal in some cases

It would seem that, just based on the numbers, Democrats are more united on gun control than Republicans are on abortion.

I wouldn't call firing elected officials "hardball". That's approaching tyranny. Elected officials are elected by their constituents. Should their constituents be displeased with those officials, they usually have means of getting rid of them electorally (recall, impeachment, etc). The governor unilaterally dismissing an elected official ignores the will of the voters who elected that official.

Someone merely being elected rather than appointed doesn't mean they get to ignore laws they don't like, or quasi-nullify the laws created by a different branch of government.

Keeping in mind, the laws passed by the Florida legislature are also the result of people electing representatives to make laws.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Someone merely being elected rather than appointed doesn't mean they get to ignore laws they don't like, or quasi-nullify the laws created by a different branch of government.

District attorneys can - at least to an extent. Otherwise, prosecutorial discretion wouldn't be a thing. But again, no cases under the new law had crossed his desk and been consigned to the circular file before he was fired, so the law was not ignored or nullified. I'm not even sure the law was in effect yet. What he was fired for was speech, not failing to do his job.

 

[Hazelelponi]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida prosecutor suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis opened his federal civil trial against the governor Tuesday with testimony that alleged his removal was based on his personal political positions on abortion and transgender rights.

The suspension came as DeSantis, a potential 2024 GOP presidential candidate, joined a wave of Republican opposition to progressive prosecutors who exercise discretion over whether to charge people with what they deem to be low-level crimes.

Prosecutor suspended by DeSantis testifies as lawsuit begins: ‘It is important for me to speak out’

A Florida prosecutor suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis opened his federal civil trial against the governor Tuesday with testimony that alleged his removal was based on his personal political positions on abortion and transgender rights.

www.washingtontimes.com

Does Warren believe that killing babies is a low level crime?

I don't believe a prosecutor should be able to determine what laws to prosecute and what ones are not worthy of prosecution; if you're a prosecutor your job is to uphold the law and prosecute those who are caught breaking the law, whatever that law is.

However, after what the judge said, DeSantis really needs to reinstate the prosecutor, with an apology. To do otherwise is just as wrong as the prosecutor determining what laws to prosecute...

The prosecutor won his case in court.. the only reason he's not reinstated is because the judge said he didn't have the power to reinstate. DeSantis does however.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

District attorneys can - at least to an extent. Otherwise, prosecutorial discretion wouldn't be a thing. But again, no cases under the new law had crossed his desk and been consigned to the circular file before he was fired, so the law was not ignored or nullified. I'm not even sure the law was in effect yet. What he was fired for was speech, not failing to do his job.

Is that the type of precedent we would accept for any other position that had some pretty big public implications? (The "it's okay to say you're not going to do your job for political reasons, but nothing can be done until you actually do it")

Surgeons also have discretion on which surgeries they want to take on or decline to perform. That discretion is usually limited to extenuating circumstances on a case by case basis (if they feel it's too risky, or if they feel the quality of life wouldn't outweigh the problem enough to make it worth doing).

However, if an anti-marijuana surgeon signed a pledge saying "I'm not performing any surgeries on anyone who's ever tested positive for marijuana because I don't believe in people doing that sort of thing", the hospital administrator or Chief of Surgery would be justified in taking disciplinary action. (even if that doctor hadn't officially put that philosophy in practice yet)

There has to be limits on prosecutorial discretion and in the past, that's centered around special circumstances of specific cases, not "refusal to prosecute for laws I don't like". Otherwise, it would be a case of "Prosecutor is God". You could literally have a prosecutor who says "I'm not going to prosecute any cases" and turn the district into the purge.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Is that the type of precedent we would accept for any other position that had some pretty big public implications? (The "it's okay to say you're not going to do your job for political reasons, but nothing can be done until you actually do it")

From a legal perspective, absolutely. The government cannot punish you for speech - that's the core of the first amendment. You'd have to demonstrate that the speech caused harm.

However, if an anti-marijuana surgeon signed a pledge saying "I'm not performing any surgeries on anyone who's ever tested positive for marijuana because I don't believe in people doing that sort of thing", the hospital administrator or Chief of Surgery would be justified in taking disciplinary action. (even if that doctor hadn't officially put that philosophy in practice yet)

The surgeon is an employee of the hospital, not elected. And a hospital is not the government.

You could literally have a prosecutor who says "I'm not going to prosecute any cases" and turn the district into the purge.

That would transition from "saying you're not going to do your job" to "actually not doing your job" in hours, if not minutes.

 

[rjs330]

I understand what Desantis did. But I have maintained that it was premature. His signed declaration means little unless he actually follows through with it. It would have only taken one good case. And if he refuses then I think Desantis could have taken the step.

I guess we'll see when the state courts get a hold of this and make some rulings.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

From a legal perspective, absolutely. The government cannot punish you for speech - that's the core of the first amendment. You'd have to demonstrate that the speech caused harm.

A couple things...

They can't punish you from expressing a viewpoint...but saying "I'm going to do (or not going to do) XYZ" isn't an expression of a viewpoint, it's a declaration of intent. Had he signed a petition saying that he supports a woman's right to choose and thinks the GOP is wrong, and got suspended, then it would be a different story.

I think there's also a key distinction here between "government punishment" and vocational ramifications when you're a government employee.

If Ron DeSantis (or some other government official) tried to lock this guy up or charge him with a crime or strip him of other rights for saying what he said, then that would be the kind of government punishment the 1st amendment was aimed at addressing.


If it were a case of what you're saying, then technically no government employee could ever be subject to conduct guidelines at work because since they technically work for the government, their boss (who represents an authority figure from "the government") punishing them for something along those lines would be considered a 1st amendment violation.


For instance, if Billy Bob works for the state wildlife division, and was using non-stop profanity in front of park guests and going out of his way to tell interracial couples he sees at the park that he disapproves of their relationship and his boss suspended or fired him for it, would that be a violation of his 1st amendment rights? (since his boss is technically "the government")


Freedom of speech means you can express an idea and not have your rights stripped away by the government, it doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want without any consequences in any aspect of my life"

That would transition from "saying you're not going to do your job" to "actually not doing your job" in hours, if not minutes.

Right, but by the standard of a "prosecutorial discretion absolutist" position, there would still be nothing that could be done about them, right?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

A couple things...

They can't punish you from expressing a viewpoint...but saying "I'm going to do (or not going to do) XYZ" isn't an expression of a viewpoint, it's a declaration of intent. Had he signed a petition saying that he supports a woman's right to choose and thinks the GOP is wrong, and got suspended, then it would be a different story.

Seems like splitting hairs to me. We generally don't punish people in our legal system for declaring an intent to do something unless they declare their intent to hurt someone. Signing an open letter as a publicity stunt is - in my opinion (and this judge's as well) - not sufficient to be taken as a declaration of intent or the establishment of a blanket policy.

I think there's also a key distinction here between "government punishment" and vocational ramifications when you're a government employee.

Again, he's not a government employee. He's an elected official. Employees agree to a code of conduct that lays out penalties (up to and including termination) for breaking it. That's not part of being an elected official. Getting rid of an elected official is supposed to be difficult - overturning the will of the people is significant and should not be taken lightly.

Right, but by the standard of a "prosecutorial discretion absolutist" position, there would still be nothing that could be done about them, right?

I suppose, but I'm not a "prosecutorial discretion absolutist," so I don't see the point of bringing it up. I already said that should he actually fail to do his job, DeSantis would probably be justified in getting rid of him.

 

[HARK!]

No they are not.

I anxiously await your proof to refute this axiom.