Developments in the Warren lawsuit vs DeSantis

[cosmickid]

Rather than rehash the original thread which was likely full of inaccuracies on both sides, I thought I'd present this latest set of developments, based on the parties appearing before the Judge today...

I always thought that Warren would be re instated, one reason being the Judge is a Clinton appointee who has ruled against DeSantis previously (I think). And judging by the judges questions and cynical approach to some of the state's claims, I'd say that ordinarily he would be inclined to just reinstate Warren...

"During a nearly two-hour hearing in Tallahassee, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle indicated he’d like to avoid the possible back-and-forth effect of reinstating Warren, only to have it potentially overturned by an appeals court.

“The public isn’t served by yo-yoing this office,” Hinkle said. “It’s everyone’s intent to get this done just as quickly as possible.”

Hinkle said he wanted a trial within the next four months to settle the matter “once and for all.” The decision, which will be formalized in writing, was welcomed by Warren and his lawyers"

Judge prefers a trial for DeSantis’ removal of Tampa prosecutor

TALLAHASSEE — A federal judge hearing the case of Hillsborough County’s ousted state attorney appears to favor a speedy trial over immediately reinstating Andrew Warren to decide the issue “once and for all.” During a nearly two-hour hearing in Tallahassee, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert L...

www.yahoo.com

Now to me the fact that he suggested reinstating Warren and having it be appealed, indicates that his initial read is that Warren may have been fired illegally. Some other comments/questions lead me to believe that's where his lean would be, were he deciding on what was presented today...

"Hinkle indicated that a trial would get to the bottom of whether there were other reasons for Warren’s removal."

"He compared the situation to that of a wrongful termination lawsuit, in which the employer will give a stated reason for firing someone. Following a trial, however, it often turns out that stated reason was false, he noted." Does that sound cynical of DeSantis to anyone else?

"Hinkle said that for Monday’s hearing, he had just a few pieces of evidence about Warren’s removal: the written order DeSantis issued, the Aug. 4 news conference DeSantis hosted and a tweet issued the night before by his spokesperson warning to “Prepare for the liberal media meltdown of the year.”

The news conference was a raucous event, with DeSantis flanked by police chiefs airing grievances about Warren in specific cases and a large crowed cheering the governor’s comparisons to rogue prosecutors in California. Hinkle said he watched the event, and it indicated there were other reasons for Warren’s removal.

“It seems to me ... that it’s chock-full of policy disagreements,” Hinkle said of the news conference."

In addition, to my layman's mind, this exchange between Hinkle and FL Solicitor General Whitaker over who is Warren's "boss", struck me as noteworthy...

"When a state attorney speaks, they represent the state, and refusing to prosecute certain cases indicates they have a gross misunderstanding of their duties deserving of removal, Whitaker said.

“You really do think the governor is the state attorney’s boss,” Hinkle said to Whitaker."

To me that sounds like Hinkle is questioning whether DeSantis's actions in firing Warren meet the definition of "dereliction of duty" requirement specified in the FL Constitution...Warren is an ELECTED official, so it seems Hinkle may feel that it is the voters who have the right to decide that issue?

But how does this trial approach differ from a simple ruling, with respect to the Appellate process overall? Are both sides bound by the trial findings?

I saw one commenter from FL ponder how enthused DeSantis will be to have to spend more taxpayers money to defend himself in this suit, in the wake of his actions using taxpayer funds for his latest political mind game? Anyone have an opinion on that?

.

 

[IU_Hickory]

It seems me that rules should be pretty clear as to what constitutes firing an elected official since you're undoing the vote. It should take clear evidence of that wrong doing and not just "he's not doing his job as I think he should be doing it."

It should take something major, like colluding with a foreign country, inciting a riot, murder etc.

Desantis obviously canned him for political reasons which is a load of crap. Same as he flew those people from Texas to Martha's vineyard for political reasons.

 

[UncleMark]

I don't claim to have a full grasp of this situation, but what I understand is that Warren said he wouldn't prosecute certain cases (abortion?). DeSantis then removed him for "dereliction of duty." But I don't believe there's been any "dereliction" actually done. Have there been any of those particular cases come up that he's refused to prosecute? Seems to me there would have to be an act of "dereliction" occur before he could be fired for "dereliction of duty."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Attorneys who represent public interests are not ethically permitted to have their personal ideology control professional decisions. Don’t know if that breech of duty is enough for the governor to take action, but I think it would subject the prosecutor to professional discipline. Unfortunately, this goes on more often than it should and nothing much happens.

 

[TomEric4756]

These seem plain enough to me

“Andrew Warren has no First Amendment right to say he will not do his job,” Whitaker said.

When a state attorney speaks, they represent the state, and refusing to prosecute certain cases indicates they have a gross misunderstanding of their duties deserving of removal, Whitaker said.

Why should a Governor have to wait for an act of bad faith, can’t a stated intention suffice.
The Governor took Warren‘s word for it and acted.

 

[IU_Hickory]

These seem plain enough to me

“Andrew Warren has no First Amendment right to say he will not do his job,” Whitaker said.

When a state attorney speaks, they represent the state, and refusing to prosecute certain cases indicates they have a gross misunderstanding of their duties deserving of removal, Whitaker said.

Why should a Governor have to wait for an act of bad faith, can’t a stated intention suffice.
The Governor took Warren‘s word for it and acted.

Prosecutors prioritize all of the time.

Why does the governor get to remove someone that was elected in by the voters over a disagreement on what should be prioritized?

If the voters had wanted a republican prosecutor, then they would have voted one in

 

[DrHoops]

Attorneys who represent public interests are not ethically permitted to have their personal ideology control professional decisions. Don’t know if that breech of duty is enough for the governor to take action, but I think it would subject the prosecutor to professional discipline. Unfortunately, this goes on more often than it should and nothing much happens.

SCOTUS

 

[cosmickid]

These seem plain enough to me

“Andrew Warren has no First Amendment right to say he will not do his job,” Whitaker said.

When a state attorney speaks, they represent the state, and refusing to prosecute certain cases indicates they have a gross misunderstanding of their duties deserving of removal, Whitaker said.

Why should a Governor have to wait for an act of bad faith, can’t a stated intention suffice.

Because what authority the Governor has to remove an ELECTED official rests solely with the power (and limits) set within the FL Constitution. Warren SAID he would not prosecute women seeking an abortion or providers, but he never had an occasion to refuse an opportunity to do so. There wasn't even an actual law on the books in Florida at the time, so it was all hypothetical.

DeSantis was elected with less than a 1% victory margin- he is NOT God. Warren has been elected twice by people in the county he serves by a larger margin than has voted for DeSantis. If the people of his county want to replace him they can do so by recalling or voting him out. DeSantis does not have the power to remove an elected official from office because he doesn't like his voiced opinion...

Also there is precedent of this very issue and how previous Governors (elected by wider margins than DeSantis) have dealt with it. When Scott was Governor a Prosecutor refused to prosecute death penalty cases. Rather than fire her like a dictator, Scott wisely chose to have all of those cases transferred to a different prosecutor.

No wanton abuse of power, just a compromise that worked for everyone and would have worked just as easily for DeSantis. DeSantis did not hire Warren and he isn't Warren's boss, except in a limited manner if Warren is guilty of dereliction of duty. Disagreeing with Ron DeSantis is not dereliction of duty...

DeSantis seems to be trying to apply the same level as reasoning as a twice-Impeached Trump arguing he can keep Govt documents because he was elected once and wants to keep them. This is why people refer to the autocratic tendencies of these two, because they seem to feel they should not be bound by Constitutional constraints.

For example, Trump has failed to grasp that he is not the only member of the Executive Branch, and seems intent on arguing that he can somehow claim Executive Privilege with regards to documents and keep them from being viewed by another office of the Executive Branch (DOJ) that has the same standing he does. That's not how the concept works...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

When this first came up here, I was in the camp of Warren having no complaint and no case. He's a public servant. He should do his job or resign. If Florida gives the governor the power to fire him for not doing his job, then he should be fired.

But, depending on how the statute is interpreted, I do think a case could be made that DeSantis was premature, since Warren never actually refused to prosecute any particular case before him.

To be honest, if he does have a case, I think that's a sign that the Florida law is poorly written. I don't think we should have to wait for him to fail at his job in a particular instance if he's already promised that he will fail at his job if given the chance. I'm just saying, he might actually be able to make a case on this one.

 

[cosmickid]

Because what authority the Governor has to remove an ELECTED official rests solely with the power (and limits) set within the FL Constitution. Warren SAID he would not prosecute women seeking an abortion or providers, but he never had an occasion to refuse an opportunity to do so. There wasn't even an actual law on the books in Florida at the time, so it was all hypothetical.

DeSantis was elected with less than a 1% victory margin- he is NOT God. Warren has been elected twice by people in the county he serves by a larger margin than has voted for DeSantis. If the people of his county want to replace him they can do so by recalling or voting him out. DeSantis does not have the power to remove an elected official from office because he doesn't like his voiced opinion...

Also there is precedent of this very issue and how previous Governors (elected by wider margins than DeSantis) have dealt with it. When Scott was Governor a Prosecutor refused to prosecute death penalty cases. Rather than fire her like a dictator, Scott wisely chose to have all of those cases transferred to a different prosecutor.

No wanton abuse of power, just a compromise that worked for everyone and would have worked just as easily for DeSantis. DeSantis did not hire Warren and he isn't Warren's boss, except in a limited manner if Warren is guilty of dereliction of duty. Disagreeing with Ron DeSantis is not dereliction of duty...

DeSantis seems to be trying to apply the same level as reasoning as a twice-Impeached Trump arguing he can keep Govt documents because he was elected once and wants to keep them. This is why people refer to the autocratic tendencies of these two, because they seem to feel they should not be bound by Constitutional constraints.

For example, Trump has failed to grasp that he is not the only member of the Executive Branch, and seems intent on arguing that he can somehow claim Executive Privilege with regards to documents and keep them from being viewed by another office of the Executive Branch (DOJ) that has the same standing he does. That's not how the concept works...

How long are Florida taxpayers going to stand by and allow DeSantis to defend his petty little political battles in court using Taxpayers money? It seems pretty obvious that Judge Hinkle (prior to discovery) already believes this is politically motivated. I'm not sure DeSantis is going to be able to convince him otherwise, since he watched the press conference and came away with that view from DeSantis's appearance there...





On a side note, DeSantis seems to be trying to follow the Trump model and believe that actions which are on shaky legal ground at best, but still fire up the MAGA faithful are a calculated risk he's willing to take. In addition to this case, the lawsuit from the immigrants sent to MV, and criminal investigations from the Bexar Co sheriff, there's now a lawsuit filed by a Dem legislator in FL.

DeSantis Sued By Florida Watchdog Group—Here’s All The Legal Fallout He Faces For Flying Migrants To Martha’s Vineyard

The lawsuit is the third the governor now faces as a result of the Martha’s Vineyard flights, along with possibly multiple investigations.

www.forbes.com

I realize this makes DeSantis lovers love him more. But does it gain him new fans? Were there really anti-immigrant xenophobes out there that weren't on the DeSantis bandwagon yet, because they didn't think he was hardline enough? I have a hard time believing that to be the case...

 

[TomEric4756]

When this first came up here, I was in the camp of Warren having no complaint and no case. He's a public servant. He should do his job or resign. If Florida gives the governor the power to fire him for not doing his job, then he should be fired.

But, depending on how the statute is interpreted, I do think a case could be made that DeSantis was premature, since Warren never actually refused to prosecute any particular case before him.

To be honest, if he does have a case, I think that's a sign that the Florida law is poorly written. I don't think we should have to wait for him to fail at his job in a particular instance if he's already promised that he will fail at his job if given the chance. I'm just saying, he might actually be able to make a case on this one.

Interesting, DeSantis’ counter argument to me would say, “failure to act would be a dereliction of my duty, as charged by my oath of office.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Interesting, DeSantis’ counter argument to me would say, “failure to act would be a dereliction of my duty, as charged by my oath of office.

I don't think DeSantis cares about his duty. I think he cares about the Oval Office.

But, at any rate, said counterargument still relies on an interpretation of the law that a promise to be derelict is the same as being derelict. In this case, as I've said, I think it should be, but I can't guarantee Florida law will be interpreted that way.

 

[TomEric4756]

I don't think DeSantis cares about his duty. I think he cares about the Oval Office.

But, at any rate, said counterargument still relies on an interpretation of the law that a promise to be derelict is the same as being derelict. In this case, as I've said, I think it should be, but I can't guarantee Florida law will be interpreted that way.

Doesn’t the governor as the chief executive of a state have wide latitude to determine what is in the best interest of voters and justice.

 

[UncleMark]

But, at any rate, said counterargument still relies on an interpretation of the law that a promise to be derelict is the same as being derelict. In this case, as I've said, I think it should be, but I can't guarantee Florida law will be interpreted that way.

Even that would assume that a prosecutor exercising his discretion constitutes dereliction. Not sure you can make that assumption.

 

[UncleMark]

Doesn’t the Governor as the chief executive of a state have wide latitude to determine what is in the best interest of voters and justice.

Taken on its face, that's a scary proposition.

 

[TomEric4756]

Taken on its face, that's a scary proposition.

Governors implemented lockdowns and masks.
Couldn’t have done it without a wide latitude
Lockdowns should have been challenged more, in my opinion, based on freedom of association.

I haven’t been back to the office since.

 

[DANC]

Governors implemented lockdowns and masks.
Couldn’t have done it without a wide latitude
Lockdowns should have been challenged more, in my opinion, based on freedom of association.

I haven’t been back to the office since.

No, you don't get it - Governors - and Presidents - have wide latitude to rule your life only if they're a Democrat.

If they're Republican, they're overstepping their authority.

 

[Crayfish57]

No, you don't get it - Governors - and Presidents - have wide latitude to rule your life only if they're a Democrat.

If they're Republican, they're overstepping their authority.

Seems we have a microcosm of that in our own little community here doesn't it?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Doesn’t the governor as the chief executive of a state have wide latitude to determine what is in the best interest of voters and justice.

Depends on the state.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Even that would assume that a prosecutor exercising his discretion constitutes dereliction. Not sure you can make that assumption.

Fair point. I would argue that his public statement before any discretion was required is a solid argument for dereliction. (That fact cuts both ways.)

 

[cosmickid]

Governors implemented lockdowns and masks.
Couldn’t have done it without a wide latitude
Lockdowns should have been challenged more, in my opinion, based on freedom of association.

I haven’t been back to the office since.

No, you don't get it - Governors - and Presidents - have wide latitude to rule your life only if they're a Democrat.

If they're Republican, they're overstepping their authority.

Actually FL has a Constitution, which lays out when a Governor can take the EXTREME step of removing an ELECTED official. It does not allow for political considerations, such as disagreeing with that person's politics, because you know that person was Elected and thus was chosen by the will of the people...

Article IV, section 7(a), of the State Constitution authorizes the Governor to suspend any state officer not subject to impeachment or any county officer on any of the following grounds: malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission ...

DeSantis is arguing "neglect of duty", which seems a hard sell because there was no law in place at the time (Roe had not been overturned) that Warren signed the same pledge as a number of other prosecutors, including Marion Co (Indianapolis) DA Ryan Mears, also signed. Neither FL or Indiana had a law on the books banning abortion at that time, because Roe was the law of the land and such a law would be UnConstitutional.

At any rate, Warren has filed suit that DeSantis actions violate free speech and the FL Constitution. DeSantis wanted the suit thrown out, but the Judge never seemed to consider that at all. It seemed to me that he indicated that he could re-instate Warren, but that would just result in appeals and counter appeals. So he has ordered the case to trial, to resolve the matter once and for all.

The judge said he watched the presser when DeSantis announced firing Warren, and he felt there was more going on than just a legitimate removal for dereliction of duty. So DeSantis will have to convince the Judge that his actions weren't motivated by politics, and like I said I think that's a tough sell. Esp when DeSantis replaced a 2x elected Democrat office holder with a GOP official who never ran for office before...

Here is a article which also discusses the case of Mears in Indiana, in light of Indiana's brand new restrictive abortion ban...In this case, Rokita is arguing that Mears should not be involved in a case brought against the new law.

Strange how a GOP Governor is not trying to fire the Indiana DA who signed the same pledge as Warren, and in fact isn't personally involved. Instead Holcomb is allowing the Sec of State to get involved in removing him from a case, but not the drastic action of trying to fire him. Funny how rational people who aren't fixated on the WH can be...

Prosecutor Suspended by DeSantis Loses Bid to Get Job Back (3)

A federal judge on Monday denied a motion to immediately reinstate a Florida prosecutor suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis for pledging not to enforce the state’s abortion laws, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[DANC]

Actually FL has a Constitution, which lays out when a Governor can take the EXTREME step of removing an ELECTED official. It does not allow for political considerations, such as disagreeing with that person's politics, because you know that person was Elected and thus was chosen by the will of the people...

Article IV, section 7(a), of the State Constitution authorizes the Governor to suspend any state officer not subject to impeachment or any county officer on any of the following grounds: malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission ...

DeSantis is arguing "neglect of duty", which seems a hard sell because there was no law in place at the time (Roe had not been overturned) that Warren signed the same pledge as a number of other prosecutors, including Marion Co (Indianapolis) DA Ryan Mears, also signed. Neither FL or Indiana had a law on the books banning abortion at that time, because Roe was the law of the land and such a law would be UnConstitutional.

At any rate, Warren has filed suit that DeSantis actions violate free speech and the FL Constitution. DeSantis wanted the suit thrown out, but the Judge never seemed to consider that at all. It seemed to me that he indicated that he could re-instate Warren, but that would just result in appeals and counter appeals. So he has ordered the case to trial, to resolve the matter once and for all.

The judge said he watched the presser when DeSantis announced firing Warren, and he felt there was more going on then just a legitimate removal for dereliction of duty. So DeSantis will have to convince the Judge that his actions weren't motivated by politics, and like I said I think that's a tough sell. Esp when DeSantis replaced a 2x elected Democrat office holder with a GOP official who never ran for office before...

 

[DrHoops]

View embedded media

Yes...constitutions are boring. Ignore them.

Pathetic.

 

[ribbont]

Yes...constitutions are boring. Ignore them.

Pathetic.

What's the problem? DeSantis interpreted the FL Constitution one way. Warren another way. Suit filed. SC will litigate. Is this not how a government works?

 

[DANC]

What's the problem? DeSantis interpreted the FL Constitution one way. Warren another way. Suit filed. SC will litigate. Is this not how a government works?

They get all giddy when a judge gets involved. They like authoritarian figures.

 

[DrHoops]

What's the problem? DeSantis interpreted the FL Constitution one way. Warren another way. Suit filed. SC will litigate. Is this not how a government works?

I was responding to Dan's gif. Take it up with DANC

 

[ribbont]

I was responding to Dan's gif. Take it up with DANC

I would but you seem to enjoy cosmic's drivel. Warren failed on several duties. Cos only likes to focus on things that support his beliefs. I have smacked his arguments down on several occasions and he never responds. You and others treat him like a Lib god because he can spew lots of words and link lib websites.
Hey Cos! Ever going to respond to my counter arguments on Ron Johnson, Kyle Rittenhouse, and others? Or do you concede I am right and you are wrong?

 

[DrHoops]

I would but you seem to enjoy cosmic's drivel. Warren failed on several duties. Cos only likes to focus on things that support his beliefs. I have smacked his arguments down on several occasions and he never responds. You and others treat him like a Lib god because he can spew lots of words and link lib websites.
Hey Cos! Ever going to respond to my counter arguments on Ron Johnson, Kyle Rittenhouse, and others? Or do you concede I am right and you are wrong?

Take it up with Cosmic.

 

[ribbont]

Take it up with Cosmic.

I have. He runs when presented with facts. Seemed like you were partnering with him against DANC. My bad if I interpreted you defending cosmic.

 

[DrHoops]

I have. He runs when presented with facts. Seemed like you were partnering with him against DANC. My bad if I interpreted you defending cosmic.

Yes...It's a CONSPIRACY!!!

 

[ribbont]

Yes...It's a CONSPIRACY!!!

Are you back to the Russia hoax? Geez, move on.

 

[DrHoops]

Are you back to the Russia hoax? Geez, move on.

Hahaha! You're a treat.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No, you don't get it - Governors - and Presidents - have wide latitude to rule your life only if they're a Democrat.

If they're Republican, they're overstepping their authority.

And this post is where a good thread went to shit. Good job, Danc.

 

[DANC]

And this post is where a good thread went to shit. Good job, Danc.

Only from your perspective. You've never liked it when I point out obvious hypocrisy.

 

[cosmickid]

What's the problem? DeSantis interpreted the FL Constitution one way. Warren another way. Suit filed. SC will litigate. Is this not how a government works?

I think his target was DANC, for his "bored" gif..., rather than saying DeSantis ignored the Constitution. I agree with your point, and gave my own longwinded analysis and opinions of how things will play out...

People are free to ignore the post, disagree with it and offer a counter argument, or even agree. But I don't think it's helpful to just comment that you're bored, without engaging in an actual discussion. That's my opinion, and what I think Bulk was basically saying...

I just ignore posts that bore me, which is why I rarely respond to DANC unless I have a different fact or counterpoint to discuss. The last thing I do when the post is beyond my ability or comprehension, or it's an area I know I'm uninformed about is try and draw attention to my ignorance by posting that I'm bored. I just don't comment, since I don't need any extra help in looking lost and ignorant.

 

[cosmickid]

I would but you seem to enjoy cosmic's drivel. Warren failed on several duties. Cos only likes to focus on things that support his beliefs. I have smacked his arguments down on several occasions and he never responds. You and others treat him like a Lib god because he can spew lots of words and link lib websites.
Hey Cos! Ever going to respond to my counter arguments on Ron Johnson, Kyle Rittenhouse, and others? Or do you concede I am right and you are wrong?

Sorry I responded to your previous post before I saw this one. I'm not sure I'm aware of you smacking me down with facts, I'm not sure I've even read all your responses because threads drop down in the sequential order and I usually start at whatever is at the top of the roll when I access the site and work my way down. This is especially true when a topic moves off of page 1- I don't make it off of the first page that often.

I'm just not on this page that often, and whenever I come back there are frequently new topics I get engrossed in.
It's almost noon, and I've been much more engrossed in trying to pick some CFB winners, so I just now got on the site. I will say if you present an actual fact that refutes an argument I make I'll usually acknowledge it. But when it's just an opinion at some point I lose interest in the point because to people trying to convince each other to accept their respective opinion gets tiresome after a while.

I'm in the middle of other things right now (IU and football in general) but I'll likely get back to the site later on.
Right now I've got to check out my bookie's lines and get busy.

 

[ribbont]

Sorry I responded to your previous post before I saw this one. I'm not sure I'm aware of you smacking me down with facts, I'm not sure I've even read all your responses because threads drop down in the sequential order and I usually start at whatever is at the top of the roll when I access the site and work my way down. This is especially true when a topic moves off of page 1- I don't make it off of the first page that often.

I'm just not on this page that often, and whenever I come back there are frequently new topics I get engrossed in.
It's almost noon, and I've been much more engrossed in trying to pick some CFB winners, so I just now got on the site. I will say if you present an actual fact that refutes an argument I make I'll usually acknowledge it. But when it's just an opinion at some point I lose interest in the point because to people trying to convince each other to accept their respective opinion gets tiresome after a while.

I'm in the middle of other things right now (IU and football in general) but I'll likely get back to the site later on.
Right now I've got to check out my bookie's lines and get busy.

I am just playing with you. It just seems I have replied to you with no response on a few posts. No worries. Enjoy the game and good luck on the bets.

 

[Stuffshot]

Only from your perspective. You've never liked it when I point out obvious hypocrisy.

You sound like an expert on hypocrisy.

Please keep posting.

 

[zeke4ahs]

They get all giddy when a judge gets involved. They like authoritarian figures.

Like Trump?

 

[Crayfish57]

Mark my words, what can I say?