- Oct 29, 2017
- 55,437
- 8,167
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Upvote
0
No, it doesn't. Abortions in Texas. Aren't old enough to be a baby.
How is that not a blanket policy with regards to Florida's new laws?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.
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.Sadly it appears that Warren has no remedy for this power grab by DeSantis.
It's not an official or binding statement, or a directive to the office.How is that not a blanket policy with regards to Florida's new laws?
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).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.
I'm not aware of any cases of elected sheriffs or clerks being fired simply for making those statements.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
Unborn babies are babies.Have you stopped conflating babies with foetuses, yet?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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")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.
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.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")
The surgeon is an employee of the hospital, not elected. And a hospital is not the government.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)
That would transition from "saying you're not going to do your job" to "actually not doing your job" in hours, if not minutes.You could literally have a prosecutor who says "I'm not going to prosecute any cases" and turn the district into the purge.
A couple things...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.
Right, but by the standard of a "prosecutorial discretion absolutist" position, there would still be nothing that could be done about them, right?That would transition from "saying you're not going to do your job" to "actually not doing your job" in hours, if not minutes.
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.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.
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.I think there's also a key distinction here between "government punishment" and vocational ramifications when you're a government employee.
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.Right, but by the standard of a "prosecutorial discretion absolutist" position, there would still be nothing that could be done about them, right?
I anxiously await your proof to refute this axiom.No they are not.