In the Texas case, it must be mentioned that the story has been featured prominently on the execrable Tucker Carlson's show, and that as soon as he called for a pardon, his lapdog, Governor Abbott, echoed Carlson's words.
How in the world is it the job of a governor to substitute his "questions" about a trial verdict for the judicial process, any more than it is the job of Jordan to interfere with a criminal prosecution. Once the "questions" have been addressed on appeal, if the person with pardon power still disagrees, or even supports pardoning for other reasons than an "innocence" he perceives, then he can pardon. The pardon can be based on nothing more than the idea that the next Ted Bundy's grandmother was a friend of the governor--nothing can stop the pardon. But to stop the PROCESS is not just a norm broken. It is a full out executive branch attack on the judicial system.
Welcome to the world of Trump. Your enemies are anyone who disagrees with you and they must be punished. The "right" is never wrong and the "left" is never right. Authoritarianism is the new norm and individual freedom is only for those who agree with you. Can you imagine what this country will be like if Trump wins in 2024? God help us all. And I am speaking as a former Republican who had never voted for a Democrat in my life until 2020.
I am also a former Republican who had never voted for a Democrat until 2020. It was important for me to use my vote to keep Trump out of office. It wasn't nearly as much of a vote FOR Biden as it was a vote AGAINST Trump.
All three examples are troubling to me, but the one done by Democrats in MN bothers me the most. I live in Texas and wish the voters had ousted Abbott, but he's not doing anything that I don't expect from Republicans all across the country.
I do expect Democrats to keep political considerations out of the realm of justice. Either we believe in the Rule of Law and results of elections - even local DA offices - or we don't.
If we don't stand up for what we believe in, if we don't hold our elected officials to the same standards we believe Republicans should hold to, then how can we convince voters of the rightness of our cause?
>In Minnesota, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz took a case away from recently elected Hennepin County Mary Moriarty, also a Democrat, on April 6 and gave it to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, also a Democrat, at Ellison’s request.
Might be worth researching other instances where this exact action has been undertaken in this exact county of this exact state.
We differ. I’ve been writing and talking about these sorts of actions — in Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and elsewhere — for years. This is no different. It’s bad for democracy when elected prosecutors are given broad discretion to make any choice that want in a case — except when they do something that completely fits with their promises to voters but is not as harsh/carceral as others prefer.
I agree with both you and Hannah (just below) that it's a bad thing. However, to me it seems perfectly in keeping with the bi-partisan love of the carceral state in the US rather than a direct attack on democracy. The prosecutor was elected, the Governor was elected, and assuming the Governor isn't acting extra-legally there is only a very narrow sense in which you can argue that this is anti-democratic.
I'm way out of my depth "arguing" this with you (both) and I thank you (both) for your follow-up. It's given me more to think about.
When people invoke "democracy" and urge its preservation they're not talking just about popular rule. They mean something like, "the ordered liberal proceduralism + egalitarianism that prevails in favored Western jurisdictions." Excessive popular rule can even skew illiberal and offend "democracy," cf Orban.
When the Minnesota governor reassigns Hennepin County murder prosecutions to Ellison (most famously this happened re: George Floyd) in hopes of appeasing a literal or figurative mob, he's perturbing the ordered-proceduralism aspect of democracy, even though everyone involved is elected and the populace is getting what it wants.
These are all excellent points and you (both) have convinced me that these are the same "kind" of foul, but I still maintain that there is a difference between using gerrymandered super-control of a legislature to overturn elections, to declare open season on protestors against the regime, and a legal but bad-intentioned (to appease a "mob") change of venue for a prosecution. (I know "change of venue" isn't the correct term).
Minnesota's practices vis-a-vis assignment of murder prosecutions are actually pretty troubling. If dissected, they might even arcanely render some famous convictions unconstitutional.
In the Texas case, it must be mentioned that the story has been featured prominently on the execrable Tucker Carlson's show, and that as soon as he called for a pardon, his lapdog, Governor Abbott, echoed Carlson's words.
How in the world is it the job of a governor to substitute his "questions" about a trial verdict for the judicial process, any more than it is the job of Jordan to interfere with a criminal prosecution. Once the "questions" have been addressed on appeal, if the person with pardon power still disagrees, or even supports pardoning for other reasons than an "innocence" he perceives, then he can pardon. The pardon can be based on nothing more than the idea that the next Ted Bundy's grandmother was a friend of the governor--nothing can stop the pardon. But to stop the PROCESS is not just a norm broken. It is a full out executive branch attack on the judicial system.
Welcome to the world of Trump. Your enemies are anyone who disagrees with you and they must be punished. The "right" is never wrong and the "left" is never right. Authoritarianism is the new norm and individual freedom is only for those who agree with you. Can you imagine what this country will be like if Trump wins in 2024? God help us all. And I am speaking as a former Republican who had never voted for a Democrat in my life until 2020.
I am also a former Republican who had never voted for a Democrat until 2020. It was important for me to use my vote to keep Trump out of office. It wasn't nearly as much of a vote FOR Biden as it was a vote AGAINST Trump.
All three examples are troubling to me, but the one done by Democrats in MN bothers me the most. I live in Texas and wish the voters had ousted Abbott, but he's not doing anything that I don't expect from Republicans all across the country.
I do expect Democrats to keep political considerations out of the realm of justice. Either we believe in the Rule of Law and results of elections - even local DA offices - or we don't.
If we don't stand up for what we believe in, if we don't hold our elected officials to the same standards we believe Republicans should hold to, then how can we convince voters of the rightness of our cause?
>In Minnesota, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz took a case away from recently elected Hennepin County Mary Moriarty, also a Democrat, on April 6 and gave it to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, also a Democrat, at Ellison’s request.
Might be worth researching other instances where this exact action has been undertaken in this exact county of this exact state.
I find the inclusion of the Minnesota case to be weak, at best, with a tenuous connection to the destruction of democracy or democratic norms.
We differ. I’ve been writing and talking about these sorts of actions — in Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and elsewhere — for years. This is no different. It’s bad for democracy when elected prosecutors are given broad discretion to make any choice that want in a case — except when they do something that completely fits with their promises to voters but is not as harsh/carceral as others prefer.
I agree with both you and Hannah (just below) that it's a bad thing. However, to me it seems perfectly in keeping with the bi-partisan love of the carceral state in the US rather than a direct attack on democracy. The prosecutor was elected, the Governor was elected, and assuming the Governor isn't acting extra-legally there is only a very narrow sense in which you can argue that this is anti-democratic.
I'm way out of my depth "arguing" this with you (both) and I thank you (both) for your follow-up. It's given me more to think about.
When people invoke "democracy" and urge its preservation they're not talking just about popular rule. They mean something like, "the ordered liberal proceduralism + egalitarianism that prevails in favored Western jurisdictions." Excessive popular rule can even skew illiberal and offend "democracy," cf Orban.
When the Minnesota governor reassigns Hennepin County murder prosecutions to Ellison (most famously this happened re: George Floyd) in hopes of appeasing a literal or figurative mob, he's perturbing the ordered-proceduralism aspect of democracy, even though everyone involved is elected and the populace is getting what it wants.
These are all excellent points and you (both) have convinced me that these are the same "kind" of foul, but I still maintain that there is a difference between using gerrymandered super-control of a legislature to overturn elections, to declare open season on protestors against the regime, and a legal but bad-intentioned (to appease a "mob") change of venue for a prosecution. (I know "change of venue" isn't the correct term).
Not coincidentally, the prosecutor who is politically preferable is sometimes more ethically flexible.
Minnesota's practices vis-a-vis assignment of murder prosecutions are actually pretty troubling. If dissected, they might even arcanely render some famous convictions unconstitutional.
Hannah, please see my response to Chris's earlier reply, it's meant for you both.
Thank you for responding.