In other words -- DeSantis won and turncoat Ron lost.Im Gipper said:
Congrats on the Pyrrhic victory Andrew!BREAKING: Federal judge rules Desantis violated State Attorney Andrew Warren’s 1st Amendment rights, and violated the FL Constitution, but says he has no jurisdiction to reinstate him because this is a state issue not federal. https://t.co/HSytiUIWPJ
— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) January 20, 2023
Florida Supreme Court upholds DeSantis suspension of Soros-backed state attorney: https://t.co/7KdX2KK3Mx
— AG (@AGHamilton29) June 23, 2023
Suspending means? Can this State Attorney get his job back, hope not?fooz said:#BREAKING: Gov. Ron DeSantis is suspending State Attorney Andrew Warren, a Democrat, for vowing to not enforce prohibitions on sex changes for minors or restrictions on abortion
— Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) August 4, 2022
"When you make yourself above the law, you have violated your duty." pic.twitter.com/BegsmOXqWR
Thank you for the information.Im Gipper said:
That tweet is from months ago. He tried to get his job back and failed.
The update is that Supreme Court hammered him again
Im Gipper said:
Congrats on the Pyrrhic victory Andrew!BREAKING: Federal judge rules Desantis violated State Attorney Andrew Warren’s 1st Amendment rights, and violated the FL Constitution, but says he has no jurisdiction to reinstate him because this is a state issue not federal. https://t.co/HSytiUIWPJ
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 20, 2023
And yet the judge by his own statement, has no standing to do anything. **** off federal judge!HTownAg98 said:Im Gipper said:
Congrats on the Pyrrhic victory Andrew!BREAKING: Federal judge rules Desantis violated State Attorney Andrew Warren’s 1st Amendment rights, and violated the FL Constitution, but says he has no jurisdiction to reinstate him because this is a state issue not federal. https://t.co/HSytiUIWPJ
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 20, 2023
Eleventh Circuit says "yeah, no, DeSantis violated his first amendment rights." Vacated and remanded. And so it goes on.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/01/10/andrew_h._warren_v._ron_desantis.pdf
Weird. I thought that remedies for Constitutional violations by State governments was one reason that we even HAVE federal courts. Is he saying that it is SCOTUS original jurisdiction or something?Quote:And yet the judge by his own statement, has no standing to do anything. **** off federal judge!Quote:
Eleventh Circuit says "yeah, no, DeSantis violated his first amendment rights." Vacated and remanded. And so it goes on.
ts5641 said:And yet the judge by his own statement, has no standing to do anything. **** off federal judge!HTownAg98 said:Im Gipper said:
Congrats on the Pyrrhic victory Andrew!BREAKING: Federal judge rules Desantis violated State Attorney Andrew Warren’s 1st Amendment rights, and violated the FL Constitution, but says he has no jurisdiction to reinstate him because this is a state issue not federal. https://t.co/HSytiUIWPJ
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 20, 2023
Eleventh Circuit says "yeah, no, DeSantis violated his first amendment rights." Vacated and remanded. And so it goes on.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/01/10/andrew_h._warren_v._ron_desantis.pdf
Violate vs reinstate. The leftist's primary grievance was being removed from a job he was intentionally sabotaging. He then whines about a free speech violation. The federal judge agreed with the whining, but that doesn't gift him back the job.Antoninus said:Weird. I thought that remedies for Constitutional violations by State governments was one reason that we even HAVE federal courts. Is he saying that it is SCOTUS original jurisdiction or something?Quote:And yet the judge by his own statement, has no standing to do anything. **** off federal judge!Quote:
Eleventh Circuit says "yeah, no, DeSantis violated his first amendment rights." Vacated and remanded. And so it goes on.
ETA:
Researched it. Second poster above was just wrong. It was the LOWER court that said it "had no standing to do anything," sort of. The appellate court said that ruling was wrong and remanded for further proceedings.
Back when this happened, I questioned the constitutionality of the Florida statue which authorized DeSantis' actions. To me, it appears that there is no question DeSantis follow the law. The question is whether the law passes constitutional muster.
Antoninus said:
And the appellate court cannot procedurally reinstate him at this time bc the district court dismissed the case too soon. I do not think that the 11th ruling precludes reinstatement as a potential remedy in District Court, but I've not yet read the full opinion.
i've never seen anything to indicate that DeSantis is not a competent attorney, and any competent attorney should have questioned the constitutionality of that statute before using it. it was a purely political move. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
What? Exactly how can the constitutionality be reviewed by courts without testing it? That's the whole point of test cases such as Roe v. Wade.Quote:
i've never seen anything to indicate that DeSantis is not a competent attorney, and any competent attorney should have questioned the constitutionality of that statute before using it. it was a purely political move. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
BMX Bandit said:I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Texas government is set up.Zarathustra said:
Are you being naive on purpose? If Abbott doesn't have the political power to influence a prosecutor within his state then that definitely means we need a new governor. Or a new political party.
A district attorney in Texas is not a part of the executive branch of government. Abbott has no power over them.
What is it you think he should do to influence them? And if that doesn't work, then what?
From what I read, he verbally disagreed but never stopped enforcing the law. He still did his job, leaving his words as the reason he was punished.Rapier108 said:
I'd love to know how they are using the 1st amendment since freedom of speech does not apply to the workplace.
If I told my employer I wouldn't do something, I'd get fired.
His job is to enforce state law. He does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he will ignore. Nothing but a typical little leftist ***** and the feds need to stay out of it.
Yep, uniforms should be brown shirts with red arm bandsannie88 said:BusterAg said:
So, can he suspend like half the FBI when he wins in 2024?
Because that would be awesome.
As well as the CIA and the DOJ.
They are all Weaponized as Nazi propaganda for the DNC now.
If an elected official does not believe a law passed by the legislature will pass Constitutional muster, I see no reason that he would be REQUIRED to invoke that statute. As you say, "this isn't hard" to understand.LOYAL AG said:How exactly does he determine the constitutionality of the law in question without using it and seeing what happens in court? I'm certain he talked to the governor's counsel or state attorney or whoever he needed to confer with before going forward and was told they could win this fight. Like you said he didn't break the law, now let's see if the law is constitutional.Antoninus said:
And the appellate court cannot procedurally reinstate him at this time bc the district court dismissed the case too soon. I do not think that the 11th ruling precludes reinstatement as a potential remedy in District Court, but I've not yet read the full opinion.
i've never seen anything to indicate that DeSantis is not a competent attorney, and any competent attorney should have questioned the constitutionality of that statute before using it. it was a purely political move. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Quote:
That aside how on earth is the first amendment relevant? You were elected to do a job and have refused to do it. Not failed, refused. Then you grandstand about your refusal so we don't give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude you're incompetent. Your opinion of the laws in question is second to the fact that they exist and it's your job to enforce them. Do your job or don't run for that office. This isn't hard. This became political when Soros started sponsoring leftist DA that refused to enforce the law.
Scoff at reality all you want - doesn't change that he's pumped a ton on money into soft-on-Democrat-crime DA's and these DAs have been (shocker) soft on crime. I say throw RICO charges at the lot of them and let ethical replacement DAs sort the mess out.Antoninus said:If an elected official does not believe a law passed by the legislature will pass Constitutional muster, I see no reason that he would be REQUIRED to invoke that statute. As you say, "this isn't hard" to understand.LOYAL AG said:How exactly does he determine the constitutionality of the law in question without using it and seeing what happens in court? I'm certain he talked to the governor's counsel or state attorney or whoever he needed to confer with before going forward and was told they could win this fight. Like you said he didn't break the law, now let's see if the law is constitutional.Antoninus said:
And the appellate court cannot procedurally reinstate him at this time bc the district court dismissed the case too soon. I do not think that the 11th ruling precludes reinstatement as a potential remedy in District Court, but I've not yet read the full opinion.
i've never seen anything to indicate that DeSantis is not a competent attorney, and any competent attorney should have questioned the constitutionality of that statute before using it. it was a purely political move. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.Quote:
That aside how on earth is the first amendment relevant? You were elected to do a job and have refused to do it. Not failed, refused. Then you grandstand about your refusal so we don't give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude you're incompetent. Your opinion of the laws in question is second to the fact that they exist and it's your job to enforce them. Do your job or don't run for that office. This isn't hard. This became political when Soros started sponsoring leftist DA that refused to enforce the law.
The "Soros Bogeyman" argument. It is sad ... rather like the Left whining about the Koch brothers for two decades. A rich, successful man is using his resources to influence the political process, rather than wasting it on yachts and private jetliners. Scary.
It was stupid when the Left whined about the Kochs, and it is equally stupid now that the Right is whining about Soros.
