Considering that Warren was an elected official, resolution of this dispute - which is not the least bit factually complex - really needed to be resolved much quicker. DeSantis effectively got what he wanted in depriving voters of who they elected no matter the outcome and Warren has now announced that he won't seek re-election to reclaim his office.
This is great news. Thanks for the reporting and explanation. Now I want to know if the second “progressive” (black female) prosecutor who was wrongfully fired by DeSatan has filed a similar lawsuit? I hadn’t heard and after Warren failed with his I wasn’t hopeful that she would.
No. He’s said nothing about recusal. He simply made advocacy statements and DeSantis suspended him with no actual cases to point to. In past instances, Florida governors had taken away death penalty cases from prosecutors who established “blanket policies” against seeking the death penalty. This was, essentially, DeSantis’s effort to put that into hyperdrive. (Check out the links if you’re interested; several are to past stories I’ve written on this.)
Seems to me like an ethical violation on Warren's part. He says he will "refrain from prosecuting those who seeks, provide, or support abortions" but then turns that around on its head and says, any consideration will be based on Florida's laws. Those statements seem to contradict each other. Seems like he lied on one of them. You can't call it "clarifying" when the statements cannot be reconciled. It is true he shouldn't be fired until he refuses to prosecute under the law but what he did here is a little wishy washy.
Not at all. You’re doing exactly what the district court did by reading the sentence out of context. (Worse, actually, by clipping the sentence in half.)
No, it's an advocacy statement. It's honestly beneath you to treat it as DeSantis's team has. It's ridiculous to pretend that a sign-on letter like that — prepared by others with generic language that has nothing state-specific — as somehow evincing an actual office policy.
From the letter, "As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortion." "Enforcing abortion bans runs counter to the obligations and interests we are sworn to uphold." "we have a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are focused on efforts to prevent and address
serious crimes, rather than enforcing abortion bans that divide our community, create untenable choices for patients and healthcare providers, and erode trust in the justice system." "Our obligation to exercise our discretion wisely requires us to focus prosecutorial resources on the child molester or rapist, not on prosecuting the victim or the healthcare professionals who provide that victim with needed care and treatment." " values that would be undermined by the enforcement of laws that criminalize deeply personal decisions" "Our legislatures may decide to criminalize personal healthcare decisions, but we remain obligated to prosecute only those cases that serve the interests of justice and the people. Criminalizing and prosecuting individuals who seek or provide abortion care makes a mockery of justice; prosecutors should not be part of that."
All of these statements seem to go into more than just advocacy. If you disagree thats ok but this is pretty strong language that seems more than an advocacy. It seems like they are saying that is how their office will operate.
Yes, I have read the letter. Well done. And, if you actually read the opinion — even the district court decision, as to anything except the first sentence — no one agrees with you about this. You are turning individuals' signed-on statement into an office policy. There is no evidence that was done here. In fact, quite to the contrary. It was, quite clearly, core political speech.
Considering that Warren was an elected official, resolution of this dispute - which is not the least bit factually complex - really needed to be resolved much quicker. DeSantis effectively got what he wanted in depriving voters of who they elected no matter the outcome and Warren has now announced that he won't seek re-election to reclaim his office.
Agreed, Warren was suspended and replaced by a horrible anti-choice monster and this has been going on for years now. Disgusting.
Weird how quiet the “free speech absolutists” are about DeSantis’ viewpoint suppression.
This is great news. Thanks for the reporting and explanation. Now I want to know if the second “progressive” (black female) prosecutor who was wrongfully fired by DeSatan has filed a similar lawsuit? I hadn’t heard and after Warren failed with his I wasn’t hopeful that she would.
If I understand this correctly,
Warren is basically saying, as a prosecutor, he would recuse(?) himself from prosecution of anyone involved in an abortion in
Florida, thereby not violating
FL abortion law. But he's free
to express his 1st amendment
rights without it jeopardizing
his job.
No. He’s said nothing about recusal. He simply made advocacy statements and DeSantis suspended him with no actual cases to point to. In past instances, Florida governors had taken away death penalty cases from prosecutors who established “blanket policies” against seeking the death penalty. This was, essentially, DeSantis’s effort to put that into hyperdrive. (Check out the links if you’re interested; several are to past stories I’ve written on this.)
Ok, I followed the links and read your posts and the brief.
I hadn't seen any of this, as I
hadn't joined your group in 22. Thank you for helping me
me get it straight.
Thank you, Chris. I understand and will check out the links.
Seems to me like an ethical violation on Warren's part. He says he will "refrain from prosecuting those who seeks, provide, or support abortions" but then turns that around on its head and says, any consideration will be based on Florida's laws. Those statements seem to contradict each other. Seems like he lied on one of them. You can't call it "clarifying" when the statements cannot be reconciled. It is true he shouldn't be fired until he refuses to prosecute under the law but what he did here is a little wishy washy.
Not at all. You’re doing exactly what the district court did by reading the sentence out of context. (Worse, actually, by clipping the sentence in half.)
You’re also misstating the Florida standards for suspension, unless by “refuses” you mean a blanket policy.
So the purpose of him signing the letter, is to indicate that he would enforce the law. Sure....
No, it's an advocacy statement. It's honestly beneath you to treat it as DeSantis's team has. It's ridiculous to pretend that a sign-on letter like that — prepared by others with generic language that has nothing state-specific — as somehow evincing an actual office policy.
From the letter, "As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortion." "Enforcing abortion bans runs counter to the obligations and interests we are sworn to uphold." "we have a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are focused on efforts to prevent and address
serious crimes, rather than enforcing abortion bans that divide our community, create untenable choices for patients and healthcare providers, and erode trust in the justice system." "Our obligation to exercise our discretion wisely requires us to focus prosecutorial resources on the child molester or rapist, not on prosecuting the victim or the healthcare professionals who provide that victim with needed care and treatment." " values that would be undermined by the enforcement of laws that criminalize deeply personal decisions" "Our legislatures may decide to criminalize personal healthcare decisions, but we remain obligated to prosecute only those cases that serve the interests of justice and the people. Criminalizing and prosecuting individuals who seek or provide abortion care makes a mockery of justice; prosecutors should not be part of that."
All of these statements seem to go into more than just advocacy. If you disagree thats ok but this is pretty strong language that seems more than an advocacy. It seems like they are saying that is how their office will operate.
Yes, I have read the letter. Well done. And, if you actually read the opinion — even the district court decision, as to anything except the first sentence — no one agrees with you about this. You are turning individuals' signed-on statement into an office policy. There is no evidence that was done here. In fact, quite to the contrary. It was, quite clearly, core political speech.
No, i am saying it is misleading is all. not that it is an office policy....
🤡