Ousted Progressive Prosecutor Files 1st Amendment Lawsuit Against Ron DeSantis

Former state attorney Andrew Warren says DeSantis unconstitutionally retaliated against him for his opinions, not any actions he had taken.

Former Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to try and retain his job after DeSantis ousted the prosecutor for alleged neglect of duty.

DeSantis announced in an August 4 press conference, flanked by local law enforcement, that he was suspending Warren after the state attorney signed letters saying he would not enforce state laws restricting abortion or transition-related medical care to transgender minors.

"Our government is a government of laws not a government of men and what that means is that we govern ourselves based on a constitutional system and based on the rule of law," DeSantis said at the press conference. "But yet we've seen across this county over the last few years individual prosecutors take it upon themselves to determine which laws they like and will enforce and which laws they don't like and then don't enforce."

Warren's lawsuit says the ouster violated his First and 14th Amendment rights and that he filed the suit to confirm "that the Constitution of the State of Florida means what the courts say it means, not whatever DeSantis needs it to mean to silence his critics, promote his loyalists, and subvert the will of the voters."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, seeks to have DeSantis' order rescinded, Warren reinstated, and a permanent injunction issued against DeSantis from retaliating further. The lawsuit notes that the letters Warren signed did not reference any specific Florida laws, nor were there any such cases pending before Warren.

Warren was elected twice by Tampa-area voters as Hillsborough County State Attorney for the 13th Judicial District, where he carved out a reputation as a progressive prosecutor. He started a conviction integrity unit to root out and overturn sloppy convictions. He also announced his office would no longer pursue "resisting without violence" charges, an offense that had become derisively known as "biking while black" because it was overwhelmingly applied against black bicyclists. The move came after the Justice Department released a 2016 report that found that 75 percent of bicyclists stopped by Tampa police were black.

Warren's replacement, Susan Lopez, announced in an office memo that she was rescinding that policy and resuming enforcement, outraging the local chapter of the NAACP.

"Why would you go back to such a policy that continues to institutionalize and continues to perpetuate systemic racism?" NAACP Hillsborough chapter president Yvette Lewis said. "It takes us way back. Erases all of the conversations that we had."

As a practical matter, prosecutors decide every day which laws to enforce, which statutes to apply, and which charges to drop in exchange for plea deals. However, progressive prosecutors around the country have faced retaliation and challenges from state legislatures and local law enforcement after categorically refusing to to charge some crimes, such as possession of trace amounts of drugs or other low-level crimes.

It is interesting to note which law enforcement leaders were flanking DeSantis at his Aug. 4 press conference, eager to play their part in front of the cameras to paint Warren as soft on crime. One of those officers was Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco, who started a "predictive policing" program that is now the subject of both a Justice Department probe and a federal civil rights lawsuit after a Tampa Bay Times investigation found police endlessly harassed residents who ended up on the sheriff's list.

DeSantis was also flanked by Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, who once said on Fox News that marijuana is "killing people every day." As Radley Balko noted in The Washington Post, murders have surged in Judd's district, much more than in Warren's, despite Judd's decidedly un-woke politics.

The Florida Senate will ultimately have the power to remove or retain Warren, but the Republican-controlled chamber often moves in lockstep with DeSantis.

Comments

[Kristian H.]

"I'm not going to do my job!" seems actionable and not 1st protection worthy.

[Illocust]

This, I'm sure someone has fugue out the words to explain this concept to people, but he lost his job because he'd conveyed he had not intention of doing his job. The manner he conveyed that intent wasn't what got him fired.

[JasonT20]

Interesting to compare this to the "constitutional sheriff" movement. They seem to think that being an elected sheriff means that they outrank just about every other law enforcement official within their counties and federal courts. They have refused to enforce COVID restrictions, said that they wouldn't enforce gun laws that they oppose, and more.

I'm sure that Gov. DeSantis will start suspending the ones in Florida for saying that they wouldn't enforce the law any day now.

[Moonrocks]

They have refused to enforce COVID restrictions, said that they wouldn't enforce gun laws that they oppose, and more

Sounds more like it's the constitution that outranks every other law enforcement official in those counties than the sheriffs themselves.

[JasonT20]

Sounds more like it's the constitution that outranks every other law enforcement official in those counties than the sheriffs themselves.

Why does a sheriff get to outrank all other law enforcement officials and courts in deciding what the constitution requires, though?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

If your side refuses to prosecute laws, then the other side gets to do so, also.

[Eva265David]

I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (lap-56) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev

[JasonT20]

The whole constitutional sheriff thing goes back years. The core idea goes back to some racist and anti-semitic groups in the 70's and 80's that died out, but got picked up again by the more recent anti-federal and anti-government right wing groups. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association was founded in 2011 by Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and Oath Keeper board member.

Don't take my word for what this movement is about and what their beliefs are. You can read for yourself from their website.

An example:

In addition to upholding the law, the sheriff is also charged with upholding the supreme law, the Constitution.

The law enforcement powers held by the sheriff supersede those of any agent, officer, elected official or employee from any level of government when in the jurisdiction of the county.

The vertical separation of powers in the Constitution makes it clear that the power of the sheriff even supersedes the powers of the President. [bold in original]

These people are nuts, quite frankly. This claim is completely ridiculous, and their words that they are upholding the Constitution that they clearly don't understand should not be taken seriously.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland]

Technically the president can do 3 things.
1 negotiate treaties (can vote on them)
2. Veto bills
3. Pardon criminals
The executive branch is supposed to be the lest powerful by design

[Mother's Lament]

"The core idea goes back to some racist and anti-semitic groups in the 70's and 80's that died out"

That's kind of a cheap shot.

[JasonT20]

That's kind of a cheap shot.

I don't think so. When modern conservatives recycle other political ideas first used by past bigots, it is on them to show that they aren't pulling in the racist ideas along with it.

[Chili Dogg]

For the record, the Left supports laws that had their basis in racism, such as the minimum wage, Davis-Bacon Act, zoning laws, etc. And the Left is racist.

If some asshole comes back at me with "whataboutism", I'll go ahead and tell you I'm pointing out the other side so we now have both sides represented.

[works45]

I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-50) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://getjobshere34.pages.dev

[JasonT20]

I didn't remember, nor have I found any support for the idea that minimum wage laws had racist roots. The first federal minimum wage in the U.S. was passed during the Great Depression in 1933 under FDR, for instance, and early progressives of the late 1800's and early 1900's pushed for it to counter sweatshops proliferating during the big industrialization push of the time. (Along with child labor laws, worker safety, and so on.) It is probably also debatable whether those other things are based in racism or whether racists took advantage of them as an unintended consequence.

Regardless, as I was saying, it is then up to them to justify those policies as being just and necessary now. If minimum wage laws do not increase racial wage disparities now, for instance, and provide the benefit claimed to most workers, then it wouldn't matter why they were originally implemented. If constitutional sheriffs don't believe or act in ways that are racist or anti-semitic now, then the history doesn't matter there either. But I bring it up because it doesn't seem to me like much has changed. That they might be using dog whistles now when they were more explicitly racist in the past. So I think my skepticism is justified.

[Agammamon]

There is no 'constitutional sheriff's in FL.

[JasonT20]

There is at least one or I wouldn't have said anything about it.

[Tionico]

Simple. The Sheriff is, by law, the highest level of law enforcement within his own county. He is also elected by the people he serves. He thus answers directly to them, not to some political party or police chief.
I know of one sheriff who got up in the grille of the head forester, a federal official, for writing traffic tickets in that county. NOT the assigned authoirty that forester had., in fact clearly outside his ballpark. The USFS dweeb backed down.. until he learned that sheriff was on vacation this gone, for a couple weeks. Had his boys in green write all they could. Sheriff found out about it when he got back. Marched into the prosecutor's office, demanded ALL the tickets, tossed them into the trash and told the prosecutor to not charge any of them. Sheriff then got into his patrol car and had a little chat with that head forester. He said "one more ticket from any of your guys, I will personally come back here, arrest you and all your agents, disarm every one of you, then escort you to the border of my county, If you ever come back you will be arrested and charged. Understood? Yes sir.

That's been a few years now, not one more traffic ticket issued by USFS in that county. The Fed guy KNEW he had been bested.

[JasonT20]

Simple. The Sheriff is, by law, the highest level of law enforcement within his own county. He is also elected by the people he serves. He thus answers directly to them, not to some political party or police chief.

Sorry, but Florida sheriffs have party affiliation on their ballots. And that state attorney was elected by the people he serves as well, answering directly to them.

[Agammamon]

In Florida, they do not. Do you understand that different states are organized differently? DeSantis has removed sheriff's for failure to enforce law too.

[JasonT20]

Sheriffs don't have the kind of authority claimed by this movement in any state. And yes, DeSantis did suspend a sheriff. But would he suspend a sheriff for not enforcing a law on the books that conservatives don't want enforced? If it is about the principle, then it should be applied without regard to political ideology.

[Anomaloid]

I think your point is the one that some are missing here. There is a big difference between refusing to prosecute property crime or assaults like so many Soros DAs versus refusing to enforce unconstitutional executive orders such as the many Covid restrictions and gun laws that were later overturned by SCOTUS. I only visit this site once every couple of months after having been a daily reader for over a decade. There are less and less libertarians here each time I return.

[Mother's Lament]

There is a big difference between refusing to prosecute property crime or assaults like so many Soros DAs versus refusing to enforce unconstitutional executive orders such as the many Covid restrictions and gun laws that were later overturned by SCOTUS.

Yes. It's a pretty obvious and important difference.

[damikesc]

Difference in NOT going against established Constitutional rights and, you know, non-Constitutional rights.

[JasonT20]

What is a non-Constitutional right? You need to be more clear.

[Mother's Lament]

Are you being coy?

[JasonT20]

No, I just don't want to put words in damikesc's mouth or assume that he means something that he doesn't. I could have assumed that he meant enumerated vs. unenumerated rights, but I would rather he make that clear himself.

If that is what he meant, then I would simply point to the Ninth Amendment. There is no difference between enumerated and unenumerated rights. There is only the question of whether a claim to a right not enumerated in the Constitution exists and is protected. If it does exist (as determined by the Supreme Court), then it is no less protected than rights explicitly listed. That was the point of saying that no one shall "deny or disparage" other rights retained by the people.

[damikesc]

Abortion is one. Not remotely protected by the Constitution. Mutilating kids is also one. States can make it legal, but it has zero constitutional protections. States can opt to outright ban if they so wish.

2nd Amendment? Not so much.

[ElvisIsReal]

Were the covid restrictions proper law?

[JasonT20]

To repeat the point, since none of you are really addressing it, who gets to decide that? If sheriffs have the authority to decide whether to enforce a law or not based on their own interpretation of the legitimacy of a law, why not the state attorney in this situation? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Again, what law?

[Mother's Lament]

^This.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Mandate is not law, Jason. Your argument ends there.

[Azathoth!!]

To repeat the point, since none of you are really addressing it, who gets to decide that?

Didn't you watch the cartoon? 'I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill.....'

There is a process whereby something becomes law. The covid restrictions did not go through that process. Therefore, they are not law.

[JasonT20]

Various government entities are granted authority, by laws, to enact policies and mandates all the time. If a county emergency authority declares that public safety requires people to stay in their homes, say after a flood or natural disaster, are you saying that law enforcement wouldn't be able to order people wandering outside to go home because it wasn't a law passed separately?

Besides, I'm not just talking about COVID restrictions. These 'constitutional sheriffs' have also declared that they wouldn't enforce laws that would confiscate guns from people, regardless of what courts have to say about their constitutionality. The point is that they are making themselves the only authority on what is or isn't constitutional, which is not how any of that should work. Checks and balances are built in throughout all levels of government in the United States. No one official gets to decide how the Constitution applies in such circumstances entirely on their own with no check on that authority.

[damikesc]

"If a county emergency authority declares that public safety requires people to stay in their homes, say after a flood or natural disaster, are you saying that law enforcement wouldn't be able to order people wandering outside to go home because it wasn't a law passed separately?"

When you cross a few days, then the mandate is no longer justified. Plenty of time for laws to proposed and passed.

[Agammamon]

In Florida, the governor does.

In other states, the people who elected the position do.

Florida is organized differently than some other states.

[DesigNate]

In Jason’s defense, he’s an authoritarian an order of magnitude above Tony.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

What law?

[Agammamon]

There is no comparison.

I'm some states, like FL, the chief executive (governor) has control over even elected subordinates.

In other states (most, AFAIK) the governor does not.

In a state where the governor can't remove an elected official is where you get loudmouth sheriff's doing what they want - as long as they can keep getting reelected.

In states like FL they get removed when they get mouthy. Keep in mind that DeSantis removed the elected sheriff after the school.shooting too.

[Nardz]

CJ Ciaramella is literally cancer.

[mad.casual]

Well, either he fully intended to carry through on his claim or he was lying. Either way State Attorneys, like any other pleb, can and do get shitcanned.

[Moonrocks]

Maybe he thought he was the Key and Peele rapper.

[John C. Randolph]

Yeah, the lefturd is full of shit. Stating your intention to ignore the law is adequate reason to fire anyone from any job, let alone a public official whose job is to enforce it.

-jcr

[Trutherator]

These people don't pay attention to what it is they're opining about. DeSantis explained clearly that he was the one with veto power on legislation (limited though it is), and Desantis has respected the limits on it.
This guy declared his INTENTION to overrule the legislation. Desantis would be wrong to do it. The Biden-Harris regime is guilty of what this guy is doing. A prosecutor is not elected to do somebody else's job. Aren't the duties spelled out in the Florida constitution and/or the statutes? Considering his oath of office, he has committed perjury.

[JesseAz]

Should I dig up on articles on the license law clerks that refused to give out marriage licenses?

The guy signed two letters saying he wouldn't do his job. His assertion is now that he has to actually not do his job before an action can be taken. It is a ridiculous assertion.

[mad.casual]

Seems like taking no action to staff his office or pay him would be completely acceptable all the way around.

Maybe get him a little State Attorney participation trophy and give it to him with a note that says, "If you don't like this free speech, take it up with the ACLU."

[Trutherator]

The ACLU today would probably agree with him.
Anyway what a douche bag. He says he won't do his job. Announces his intention to avoid doing his job. Not for nothing the governor has legal power to remove him.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

So the fucker doesn't do his job, and flatly and loudly says he won't do his job, and now he's pissed? According to Florida state law, DeSantis did what he should've done with this twit, kicking him to the curb. It was the right call, the courts will most likely side with DeSantis, and Warren looks like an even bigger idiot than before. What's Warren's next step, a post in the Biden White House?

[Iridium]

Technically, he hasn't actually "not done his job" yet. Just said he wouldn't do his job. DeSantis didn't leave in long enough for the guy to see any relevant cases. Which is why he is making this a 1st amendment issue.

One wonders if a government comptroller said he were going to embezzle funds, if the government was truly helpless to do anything about it until said comptroller took an action to advance the embezzlement.

[Iridium]

Thinking about it, it is more like if a comptroller thought government workers were underpaid, and said that his office would not check for receipts on the first $2000 of expense reports filled by employees. Wink, wink.

[Vastlyamused]

In such a case, the comptroller would be fired for "conduct undermining public trust", "dereliction of duty" or some such.
This guy basically said that under no circumstances and regardless of the facts of the individual cases he was flatly not going to enforce the law. That's an abuse of a prosecutor's discretion, and would tend to undermine the public's trust in the office.
That would be sufficient reason to remove him.
But then, he seems both stupid and a grandstanding PNDP.

[Trutherator]

And the laws he said he would not enforce are crimes against property and persons. There are stupid unconstitutional laws like the gun laws that some sheriffs have said they won't enforce, good for them. Because those are laws that violate the Constitution's plain language, and now gobbledygook from law school regurgitations can change that.

[Agammamon]

Saying you're not going to do your job is at least insubordination - which is grounds for dismissal.

[PeteRR]

To be fair, black or not, bicycle riders deserve to singled out. They are uniformly awful.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Solid reasoning.

[mad.casual]

Poor kids can get a DUI, get their license suspended, get drunk and bike to work as well as white kids!

[Trutherator]

Poor whites are the new neglected class. (And invisible)

[rbike]

No. Just no.

[A Thinking Mind]

Just bake the cake!

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

This is exactly what I want from Reason.com.

Now that #TrumpDocuments is officially the biggest scandal in the history of the universe and will land Orange Hitler in prison any day now, the 2024 GOP nomination is effectively a two-person race — the vile Ron DeSantis versus the heroic Liz Cheney. Since Koch-funded libertarians clearly prefer the early 2000s Cheney-controlled GOP over the current version, every Reason writer should try to submit 5 anti-DeSantis pieces per week.

#LizCheney2024
#PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

PS — Biden is doing so well he's a lock for reelection anyway so you might argue his 2024 opponent doesn't really matter. While that's true, I'd still like to see Cheney rewarded for her bravery by winning the nomination, losing to Biden in a landslide, then getting her own show on MSNBC.

[Tionico]

Slick LIzzie is a none starter. She just got DUMPED on hard for her congressional election. She's done. FInally

[Trutherator]

You're very funny, Mr. OpenBorders!

[Mickey Rat]

There seems to be a considerable difference between prosecutorial discretion in allocating resources and in specific circumstances and conflating that into a de facto veto of any law the State Attorney does not like.

He stated he would not faithfully execute the laws of the state for ideological reasons, not discretionary reasons. If you are not willing to do the job, then find another job.

[Rossami]

Actually, no there's not. The concept of prosecutorial discretion is often excused as allocation of resources but the power is very, very broad (on a par with jury nullification) and is an important part of the checks and balances of our intentionally divided system of government. The Executive Branch does get a de facto veto over any law they don't like. And that's good (at least potentially) for the rest of us subject to those laws.

The relevant question here is not 'did he have the authority' - he clearly did - but did he have the autonomy to make that particular exercise of discretion independently of and in contradiction with his Executive Branch superiors? Under Florida law, he did not.

[DRM]

No. The Framers did not intend to give the Executive Branch a power that was explicitly stripped from the powers of the monarch in Britain in 1689 ("the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament") as part of our system of checks and balances.

This is particularly obvious if you know that in 17th and 18th Century English law, criminal prosecutions were almost never advanced by the Crown/state, but instead by private citizens, and the right for private citizens to pursue criminal cases was preserved in US practice throughout the 19th Century. Public prosecutors working for the executive branch couldn't decide to let a crime go unpunished, since any sufficiently angry private citizen could pursue an indictment and prosecution themselves.

That the Supreme Court unilaterally and unlawfully abolished private prosecution at the Federal level in the 20th Century does not retroactively make the de facto power of Federal prosecutors to choose which cases to pursue into an intentional grant of power by the Framers to allow the President to suspend the operation of laws he swore to faithfully execute.

[Rossami]

I don't think that's right. The fact that private prosecution allows the sovereign (in this case, the citizen) to overrule the veto does not invalidate the concept of the veto. That's like saying that just because the Florida Senate could impeach Warren in the case above, DeSantis is prohibited from firing him. Yet that is explicitly not true under Florida law.

You have a stronger argument in the British precedent of 1689 - and I'll have to research that more. Thank you for the pointer.

[KevinP]

"The concept of prosecutorial discretion is often excused as allocation of resources but the power is very, very broad (on a par with jury nullification)"

Nope. There is no "power of prosecutorial discretion". It is just an acknowledgement of reality that the prosecutor doesn't have the means to prosecute every single violation of the law and so has to focus on some violations more than others.

But this does not extend to allowing the prosecutor to decide which laws he will enforce and which laws he will ignore. This would allow the prosecutor to unilaterally veto the legislature, which is usually vested with the legislative power exclusively. No constitutional scheme has ever had this feature.

[Agammamon]

Nope. It's an acknowledge power.

See the thing is *everyone* in the justice system is supposed to be working for the goal of justice. Including the prosecution. Meaning the core of prosecutorial discretion is 'if it furthers the goal of justice'.

Now, there's no doubt that many prosecutors use this power to curry favor and increase their own power but that's the idea behind it.

Its what Comey used to back up the decision to not pursue Clinton for the server scandal.

[ElvisIsReal]

You're free to say whatever you want outside work. When you refuse to do your job, we'll find somebody who will. Ask Kim Davis!

[Brandybuck]

"Rule of Law" DOES NOT MEAN "slavishly enforce all legislation".

From Wikipedia: "The rule of law is the political philosophy that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.[2] The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power."[3] The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat and refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule."

[Mickey Rat]

Who rules, the legislature or the executive. An executive that can effectively veto any law on the books which he does not like is halfway to being a dictator.

[Rossami]

Sorry, no. I appreciate where you are going but you're missing a fundamental point - you can't veto your way to a dictatorship. The veto power, whether conventionally expressed at legislation signing or through prosecutorial discretion, is an inherently negative power. It is a statement that the government won't do something. That leaves the public, the people our divided system of government was designed to protect, at liberty.

"Who rules" is simply the wrong question when asking about a system that intentionally puts stumbling blocks in the way of anyone ruling. The way our system is designed, you must convince both the legislature and the executive that X is a good idea before you get to impose your will on the rest of us.

[DRM]

you're missing a fundamental point - you can't veto your way to a dictatorship.

Sure you can. First you organize a group of thugs to your cause, like the KKK or the Brownshirts. Then you refuse to enforce the law against their crimes.

[KevinP]

Like Antifa in Portland. There is almost no law enforcement against them. They can intimidate and beat up anybody and nothing is done.

But should the other side, like the Proud Boys show up in Portland? Oh no, we can't have that!

[Iridium]

It seems like whether or not you get prosecuted for a state law depending on which prosecutor's office gets your file is an arbitrary form of government.

Yes, prosecutors should apply common sense, justice, and mercy in their evaluation of cases to prosecute, and not simply look for technicalities to prosecute people on. However, when a prosecutor does not like a law recently passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, he does not have a non-overridable veto on the legislation. Heck, I wonder how long he could have simply not prosecuted before being found out, as opposed to making a signed statement whose purpose seems to be providing assurance to people considering criminal action.

[Claptrap]

And prosecutorial discretion does not entail refusing to enforce the laws you don't like. Such action is a huge violation of the idea that officials and institutions should act to secure a nonarbitrary form of government and prevent the the arbitrary use of power.

Honestly, "slavishly enforcing all legislation" is in greater keeping with maintaining the Rule of Law than any and every use of discretion, it's just that we all know there are so many hours in the day. This is one reason why libertarians are supposed to advocate simply repealing the dumb laws.

[Moonrocks]

"Rule of Law" DOES NOT MEAN "slavishly enforce all legislation".

But of course. "Rule of law" means arbitrarily wielding power to advance political aims.

[sarcasmic]

It always has.

[damikesc]

It very much does mean that a prosecutor can nullify laws passed by the legislature. They are not provided that power and this is not a discretion issue...he said he would not prosecute period.

[DesigNate]

If he was refusing to prosecute crimes with actual victims (property and body? crimes), there is no libertarian argument in support of such actions.

[Eeyore]

He gets to keep not doing is job and can continue to say he will continue to not do it.

He could potentially argue wrongful termination, but a 1st amendment violation seems like a very deep groin stretch.

[Joe Friday]

The twice elected state attorney - DeSantis has been elected governor once by 30k votes of out 8 million cast - said he would not "criminalize reproductive choices" nor those seeking gender affirming care. There is no law regarding the latter in Florida and there have been no cases about either, so DeSantis vetoed the voters in Tampa about free speech, something he used the state legislature to do when he didn't like what the Disney CEO said. You can't be a libertarian or even an American and be in favor of vetoing the will of voters over free speech or using the full force of the government to punish speech. DeSantis an autocratic asshole.

[damikesc]

"said he would not "criminalize reproductive choices" nor those seeking gender affirming care."

Not his decision to make.

[Joe Friday]

damikesc,

1.prosecutors do decide what "crimes" they will and will not pursue.
2. The Florida abortion law is under court challenge because there is a right to privacy in the state constitution
3. The abortion law and Warren's statement are both ambiguous and not clear cut, do this, don't do that.
4. There is no transgender law in Flroida
5. There no cases of either type in Warren's district.

DeSantis was typically making culture war noise for his presidential aspirations by trying to stifle free speech by an elected official. If you are a libertarian, why are you supporting a guy who uses his state power to punish free speech and veto elections? If you're MAGA or GOP, I get it, but quit pretending this is about anything but the 2024 presidential election.

[damikesc]

"1.prosecutors do decide what "crimes" they will and will not pursue."

False. They can make choices on a case-by-case basis. On a universal basis, no.

The prosecutor got removed for refusing to do his job. Fuck him.

[Idaho Bob]

Now do every Democrat and Covid.

[Joe Friday]

Sorry, I don't get it.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The twice elected state attorney - DeSantis has been elected governor once by 30k votes of out 8 million cast

Joe Fuckface coping, seething, and dilating again.

[Claptrap]

When I want the dumbest take, I wait for Joe. Convincing the elected legislature to pass a bill equates to being an autocrat in the minds of the foremost defenders of Our Democracy.

[Joe Friday]

Clap, if you knew anything about Florida politics you'd know the legislature is a wholly owned subsidiary of the governor and the bill they passed removed Disney's "special district" governance which had been in place for 50 years without any controversy and with consequences unknown by anyone - the bill was rushed through without hearings, public or expert comment and with absolutely no idea what the consequences would be, including possible added costs to adjacent county taxpayers. Why did they do that? Because the CEO of Disney criticized other legislation DeSantis and legislature passed. That's it. You cannot possibly claim to be a 1st amendment defender, let alone libertarian and think that is OK.

[Agammamon]

So . . . like every Democrat bill in Congress.

At least Florida's stupidity is limited to Florida.

[Joe Friday]

Another stupid MAGA/GOP comment.

[Joe Friday]

Red Rocks: "I got nothing .... again."

[Azathoth!!]

The twice elected state attorney - DeSantis has been elected governor once by...

Heh. Like how you changed this, pussbag. DeSantis has been elected repeatedly--to offices with far more responsibility that this shithead prosecutor.

[sarcasmic]

Principles shminciples. It's all about abortion. If a prosecutor refused to enforce some law that Republicans didn't like, then I wager the same people calling for his termination would be showering him with praise.

[damikesc]

And the people bemoaning his firing would be demanding his head if he decided to ignore the law passed in regards to gun control, etc.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The state Senate should decide his fate.

They get to put him back in his job or remove him from it (upholding DeSantis), at least if they're allowed to apply the Florida Constitution.

It will be sort of like a trial, so it would be a great time to put forward his constitutional objections to the statutes he doesn't want to enforce. If the Senate agrees with him, and says the statutes are unconstitutional, then they can let the guy keep his job, because he's simply upholding the Constitution.

But if those statutes are constitutional, then by proclaiming he won't enforce them he's defying the Constitution itself and the Senate should remove him accordingly.

Then they can apply the same principles to the "constitutional sheriffs" mentioned above.

[Joe Friday]

The state legislature is dominated by DeSantis lapdogs. They do whatever he says to do, including the irresponsible legislative attack on the 1st amendment rights of the Disney CEO.

Of course Warren will try to avoid them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What did they do to the poor Disney CEO? I thought they took away some of the Disney Corporation's literal company-town prerogatives.

Literal corporate government.

[damikesc]

"The state legislature is dominated by DeSantis lapdogs."

Damn the voters for not conferring with you about who they should vote for.

[Dillinger]

>>Warren's lawsuit says the ouster violated his First and 14th Amendment rights

his lawyers should be fired too lol.

[Mr. Bumble]

His lawyers are Perkins Coie.

[Tionico]

Warren already has refused to prosecute some signficant cases where the evidence was overwhelmingly in need of prosecution. The Governonr, the Chief Executive Officer in that state, had repeatedly asked him to take action and he just sat on his thick end saying NOE, Not gonna HAPPIN< man.
He's right. HE will not be prosecuting those charged criminals. Someone else will whilst HE is looking for some way of supporting his chosen lifestlye.

[Joe Friday]

No, he hasn't. Put up or shut up.

[Naime Bond]

If he kept his mouth shut he could have had his cake (job) and eat it too (not prosecute certain cases). He should be fired...for being a smart ass.

[Joe Friday]

DeSantis isn't his boss and he can tell him to suck his dick if he wants. He worked for the citizens of Tampa who selected him twice.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"it does appear that Florida law contemplates the governor suspending prosecutors for refusing to enforce certain laws, or even for substantially underenforcing them."

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/04/how-can-florida-gov-desantis-suspend-elected-prosecutor-for-refusing-to-enforce-certain-criminal-laws/

[Trutherator]

I think this move by George Soros prosecutors is a move instigated by the Parasite Class to promote so much mayhem that the gullible demand help from the feds.
Note that almost no "Defund the police" demands included the feds. Just an exception in Oregon that proved the rule. Controlled Brownshirts much?

[Joe Friday]

Typical posts demonstrating again that the commenters here aren't libertarians, they're MAGA and GOP.

[MoreFreedom]

How are you distinguishing between libertarians, MAGA and RINOs and Democrats on this issue?

Don't libertarians, MAGA and RINOs want laws enforced regarding those who initiate harm against others? Democrats just seem to want to let looters, shoplifters, thugs and others who harm others go free, and prosecute Trump, and Trump's supporters such as the 1/6 protesters. The D Mayors are defunding and pointing blame at the police they hire, train and manage (in a distraction from who's responsible for George Floyd and others' deaths, and also to police for profit, seize civil assets, no-knock raids, etc.)

The difference between libertarians, MAGA and RINOs? There' are many social conservatives and hypocrites among the RINOs. Libertarians also support not enforcing what they consider immoral laws where government shouldn't be involved, or better getting rid of them. Trump removed a lot of those via EO. RINOs not so much.

[raspberrydinners]

Yep. Fascists overrun this place anymore.

Whatever their side wants is clearly "right" and defended. They just like to hide behind the guise of freedom all while tearing it down for whatever their heart desires.

[Agammamon]

"he was suspending Warren after the state attorney signed letters saying he would not enforce state laws restricting abortion or transition-related medical care to transgender minors."

So a declaration of intent to neglect isn't enough - you have to wait until they actually do?

[Joe Friday]

Read my lips!

There is no Florida "transgender law".
The recent Florida abortion law is in court and both it and Warren's comment about it are ambiguous.
There are no abortion or transgender cases that Warren is failing to prosecute and the only ones he has chosen not to prosecute are petty police harassment charges.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"petty police harassment charges"

Could you be more specific?

[I have cookies]

First & Fourteenth Amendments don't mean you can not do your job and still hold the position. Why Reason think defending progressive DAs is a good call is baffling. We can see in which cities violent crime is going through the roof. The outcome of "I'm not going to do the job" is evidence-based, not "because systemic racism" and "they hate pot".