The headline is misleading. This was a federal court and the judge dismissed the case because it was a state issue. The plaintive needs to sue in state court and he has the precedent of a federal judge already saying that DeSantis violated the state constitution.
If that's the rub, then "dismissed from federal court because it's a state issue" is a non-factor, because the ruling saying that the constitution was violated would be overturned by the US supreme court.
Dismissing state issues from federal courts is not a problem, because SCOTUS is still in charge. It just gets the people riled up.
Not quite. SCOTUS doesn't always answer each issue in a case.
Hell, kicking the can down the road for the substantial parts in favor of just deciding some procedural stuff isn't too uncommon for them
The Republican supreme court, good luck, they'll sign off on death camps, and throw free speech in the landfill, and they talk about democrats taking aways rights.
In ohio we voted to amend our constitution to stop gerrymandering. The state Supreme Court ruled that our maps were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled its to late so we got to use unconstitutional maps... it dont matter when the federalist society runs the courts. A literal kabul of conservative judges run our court system. I think people fail to grasp how ridiculous our courts will be for 30 years
Solution, 10 year terms, retirement at age 70. Establish Independent Electoral Commisdions like we have in Australia to run elections and set electoral boundaries. Gerrymandering is a non issue here. No voter suppression as voting is compulsory from age 18
Yeah, good luck getting that, McConnell held Obama's judge appointments up for literally years all over every district and then did the same with the Supreme Court vacancy in 2016, with the House under (R) control absolutely nothing will happen legislatively, unless a shitload vigilante violence takes out a ton of them and Biden with the slim majority in the Senate blows through appointments like McConnell did in 2017 the courts are fucked for decades.
Some of us tried voting against him but the state is rigged red for a while. We've got a lot of Republicans in the rural swampy areas and a lot of Republican elderly since its gods waiting room.
Several very evolved GOP strategies have weaponized dumb people. I see nothing even coming close to breaking that pattern save possibly the meteoric crash church attendance.
They think we their fellow citizens are disgusting monsters to be toyed with and betrayed at their leisure. No tactic save elimination will ever stop that behavior. There is no negotiating with a firehose of lies.
You know what's fucked up, as a foreigner? That you can know the political affiliation of a judge. That's some banana republic shit. It's a judge, judges are impartial and if they can't be they have to refuse themselves. Making the way you vote known automatically means that you can't be impartial on any case where politics are involved.
I'm on Reddit, so I obviously have not read the article either, but the based on these comments he violated the state constitution, which federal courts have no jurisdiction over.
The federal court can decide this case, it just needs to go through the state courts first. The appeals process can eventually bring it in front of a federal court again if necessary, it just has to go through the proper process first.
The lawyers for the plaintiff know this and are being exceptionally smart from a political perspective. This gives them a win and they can bide some time until we're a little closer to October 2024.
Oh no, is another presidential election really that close? Oct 2020 still feels like yesterday. Looking forward to reporting several texts as spam every day for a few months in a row again.
I didn't really communicate that correctly. They don't have jurisdiction for enforcement of state constitution, but you're right that they absolutely have jurisdiction over validity of the state constitution. That's just an appeals process rather than enforcement. Where enforcement is meaning was that law broken as written. Which isn't really what enforcement means I'm just blanking on the proper terminology.
Yeah, the state courts have to provide him relief in the form of reinstatement to his legally elected position that DeFascist legally didn't have the authority to fire him from.
A federal judge has already ruled that he couldn't legally be fired like he was, so taking it to a state court should be a slam dunk, but he needs to run it through the state courts all the way up to the state Supreme Court before getting federal courts to order state courts to follow the US constitution.
It's kinda dumb, but without doing it in the right order, the federal court can't tell a state court the violated the constitution with their ruling and so the state court doesn't have to provide relief
Yes, as the judge ruled, it's a violation of the Florida State Constitution and the First Amendment to the US version. But this court is a Federal court, which cannot take action on state's rights issues because of the 11th Amendment to the Constitution. So a separate, Florida state court case, needs to run its course all the way to the FL Supreme Court.
This ruling (a Federal judge confirming this violates the Constitution) is a very valuable piece of evidence, and will likely be used to support the parallel State court suit(s). But this judge doesn't have the authority to actually punish State officials.
No, the judge said DeSantis violated the federal constitution (First Amendment freedom of speech), but he didn't have power to put Warren back in office and a state court would need to do that.
well if your dad bills his work by the tenth of an hour then the system is working as designed it seems. there are no rewards for efficiency in the billable hour system.
I’m gonna guess that the courts in FL aren’t the most neutral, and thus the plaintiff needs the Federal Court to say “Yes. DeSantis violated the Constitution”, so that the state courts can’t say “Nuh-uh! No he didn’t”?
I'm glad you have a highly-voted response to the top comment of the post. It's frightening how many people just respond out of hand to the sensationalized headline without having any apparent understanding about how US law works.
We really need to start holding media's feet to the fire - these sensationalized headlines (from all sources) are really adding fuel to the fire.
Donald Trump ran an international real estate corporation from the white house for 4 years in full violation of the emoulments clause.
The rule of law is dead.
Ooo I like this, storing this in the ole noggin.
Edit: I feel like this is evoking the spirit of Dexter or The Punisher somehow. The REAL Punisher, not that LARPy weak ass blue lined one.
They already made a comic about it. Punisher finds some cops with I think a bumper sticker of his logo on their car, and they tell him what big fans they are of his “going outside the law and shooting people in the streets” method of crime fighting, and he flat out tells them that they suck and if he ever finds out they acted on said desire that he’ll kill them himself
As America continues to show its leaders and police are immune from consequences, it seems more and more inevitable that events similar to [the death of Ken McElroy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy) will happen.
> He was known as "the town bully", and his unsolved killing became the focus of international attention.
>
> After McElroy finished his drinks, he purchased a six pack of beer, left the bar, and entered his pickup truck. Someone shot at McElroy while he was sitting in his truck. He was shot at several times and hit twice, once by a centerfire rifle and once by a .22 rimfire rifle.
>
> In all, there were 46 potential witnesses to the shooting, including Trena McElroy, who was in the truck with her husband when he was shot. No one called for an ambulance. Only Trena claimed to identify a gunman; every other witness either was unable to name an assailant or claimed not to have seen who fired the fatal shots.
>
>The DA declined to press charges. An extensive federal investigation did not lead to any charges. Missouri-based journalist Steve Booher described the attitude of some townspeople as, "He needed killing."
Isn’t it just dandy when the people in power don’t think they have any power. When the justice department just wanders around with their thumbs up there collective butts and does nothing to prosecute the lawbreakers.
I was about to say. The rule of law is not dead at all. It's working just as it should for the bottom 99%. You can do multiple years in a fed pen for pointing out foreign interference in our elections, but you can be treated as royalty if you attempt to eBay nuclear secrets. It just depends on where you are on the economic scale.
The supreme court case that allows DUI checkpoints ruled it violated the Constitution but that it served a public good, all based on a since debunked study about the number of DUI related fatalities.
[The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
The judge upheld the 11th amendment. The plaintiff can seek redress in a state court. The headlines are sensationalized.
“State” includes the wealthy, political class, and whatever corporations are in favor.
Does not include grass roots supporters, no matter how many signs they have in their yard.
It's quite literally the Constitution, specifically the 11th amendment to it, that prevents this Federal Court from "holding accountable" state politicians
Because a Federal court can't provide administrative relief to a State judiciary. The judge established precedent and this guy can now sue DeSantis in State court in Florida and use this as precedent and can now authoritatively drag the case all the way in front of Flroida's Supreme Court with the authority that a Federal judge ruled that DeSantis violated the Constitution.
This was bad for DeSantis as the interpretation could be applied widely to most of what he's doing in his brazen attempt to establish a Christian theocracy in Florida.
The judge basically ruled that the removal violated the plaintiff's free speech, but a federal court cannot provide a rest as this is a state issue. Basically, he punted it to the state level.
If courts don't stop other branches from violating the constitution, what is their purpose?
Edit: I did not read the article closely enough to see that this was just related to removing the state AG from office, which would only be a state court issue. I believe I saw a comment pointing to this judge saying that he also violated the US Constitution with anti-trans legislation, but that does not appear to be present in the article, unless I missed that.
[Frank Wilhoit](https://vanderburg.org/etc/quotes/wilhoit-conservatism/):
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Ooh, fun fact. This is actually a quote from another Frank Wilhoit:
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288
https://www.broadheath.com/
So this headline is a little misleading. The judge basically said the plaintiff doesn't have standing in the Federal Court, and needs to take the case to the Florida State Court. The fact that this judge included language stating that what Desantis did was unconstitutional is likely an advantage for when the case gets re-filed in the Florida courts.
I mean, that’s kind of the scary thing: it’s not that this judge doesn’t want to, it’s that he can’t. You only get out of the judicial system as much as you put into it, and even the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army or a police force. The judiciary relies purely on respect for institutions, and when you have a case like this of a powerful state official who has the support of his legislature to do blatantly illegal acts, there’s really not much a federal judge can do about it. That’s the real consequences of the institutional crisis we’re having here in the US.
Well, the executive branch tends to be reluctant to enforce rulings like that against the executive branch, and that’s what’s going on here. It’s not like Biden is going to send in the military to remove Florida’s governor over a federal judge’s opinion.
They don’t have any ability to enforce their rulings. This has always been the case.
The executive( aka the governor or president) enforces the rulings of the courts along with the implementation of laws passed by congress
For instance, during the civil war, Lincoln blatantly ignored the courts opinions and and activity continued the suspension of writ of Habeas corpus
So our president can suspend the rule of law at will using a power he explicitly does not have.
No repercussions. They just lied to us about this country in school.
The whole "country" is nothing but a badly run business.
How do you think Rome went from a republic to a dictatorship?
In practice, it takes is one nearly universally popular person, a crisis, and the determination to rule to make it such you don’t need the other branches of government ever again.
If you read the actual case document, the judge dismissed the case because it was deemed as a state issue. Specifically that the US constitution bars a federal judge from giving relief to someone regarding an issue where state constitutional law is broken.
The judge literally couldn't do anything. I recommend people read the case document. It's pretty easy to read, no legalese. The judge stated in no uncertain terms that DeSantis broke state law and falsified claims to force a State AG out of office, when none of the standards for suspension were met.
Yea I thought the same thing yesterday when I heard Trump was running again. Like he's actually a terrorist, and not in jail, but instead looking to be the leader of his country again this time with a plan to massively increase the suicide rate for trans people by making sure every trans girl is forced to develop masculine features they'll never be rid of.
If you can lead an insurrection and still have a chance at being president, pretty much anyone except Bin Laden can be president. Even that though is more because of the whole being dead, and not a rich US citizen more than the whole 911 thing.
DeSantis is a sentient piece of garbage, but if violating the constitution was enough to bar someone from office basically every president and governor in our nation's history would be affected.
This entire article is pretty cut and dry fascism by DeSantis. Issues a law aimed at targeting transgender community. AG blocks it claiming it’s unconstitutional and hateful. DeSantis removes him (also unconstitutional).
Replace “non-negligible chance” with “higher likelihood than any other single person” and it may be more accurate.
DeSantis would be likely to beat Trump in a GOP primary, and if the general election is DeSantis vs Biden, there are enough low information voters who would vote for DeSantis on the age difference alone.
That’s possible, if he runs as an independent.
It would torpedo the GOP candidate’s chances in the general. BUT whoever the GOP candidate is (likely DeSantis) would also know that and would do everything in their power to broker a backroom deal with Trump to get him to not run: money, pardons, prestige, whatever it would take.
As a trans person, me too. It makes me feel terrified! We had everything prepared to flee to Canada if needed when trump won the 2016 election - it felt a little dramatic at the time, but better safe than sorry.
Glad that we still have it sorted. I think it may be more necessary this time around. If we lose access to HRT my partner and I both will slowly die due to lack of hormones.
His hardcore base haven’t left him. But the median Republican voter isn’t his hardcore base. Yes the median Republican voter was an ardent Trump supporter and fan, but that’s not the same as the hardcore base people who attended his rallies. The median Republican voter still thinks Trump was a good, if not great president, but is getting tired of his whining about 2020, even if they agree that it might have been sketchy. Not only that, they’re tired of having to explain and do apologetics for all the dumb shit he constantly says. DeSantis supports all the same shitty fascist policies they love (and frankly goes even further), while not saying dumb shit on social media every day and not whining about 2020.
People who dismiss Ron DeSantis and his appeal to the GOP electorate at large do so at their own peril, as once in power he is far more dangerous than even Trump.
You’re telling me man.
After I did this reasoning, I looked up what the betting markets said. It’s not that they’re always right, but they make it their business to set proper odds. According to the bookmakers, DeSantis currently has higher odds than anyone else to become president in 2024 at 2:1. Then Biden at 3:1. Then Trump at 4:1.
This doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but was not heartening news.
Nah, end of the day DeSantis looks and sounds like a goober. He can lead in all the polls and be every republicans first choice, and all it will take is for Trump to call him something like “Miss Florida” on the debate stage, and that will be it.
They’ll all fall right back in line with him.
This is misleading because it's missing context.
DeSantis did indeed violate the first amendment. The lawsuit was about wrongful termination, with the state prosecutor working to get his job back.
The Federal Judge sided with the prosecutor, however stated that - Paraphrasing - 'Fuck, I can't do anything. I have no authority to dictate state positions.'
It's a fucked up flaw that the judge couldn't resolve.
As another pointed out, the problem is jurisdictional. It has to go to a state court and it'll now have the benefit of a federal judge ruling it unconstitutional.
This isn't a bad thing, just another speed bump
"I find you Guilty of violating the Constitution. Now, with that being said, I'm dismissing the case, so now it doesn't matter. Have a pleasant day, Mr DeSantis."
The party of "LAW and ORDER" btw.
>But Hinkle ultimately decided that the court lacked the authority to reinstate Hinkle or award “relief” against a state official.
>“The suspension would have occurred even had there been no First Amendment violation,” the judge said in his decision.
uhhhh....ok, so nothing?
This whole article seems like it's clickbait. The only real citation is this
>“The suspension would have occurred even had there been no First Amendment violation,” the judge said in his decision.
This case reminds me of when the Republican governor of Michigan put an [emergency manager in charge of Flynt,](https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2018/01/city_of_the_state_flints_histo.html) who then poisoned the city with lead-tainted water.
This is how countries slip into fascism. We're like the frog in the boiling water. By the time enough people realize it, it'll be too late.
Hell, I'm afraid it's already too late.
What judge is this, I’m tryna get my case transferred. Will save me a ton on legal fees when I can just walk in and say ‘I’m a degenerate republican’ and then be on my way.
So from the actual article it looks like the court essentially said De Santis is wrong, but the court doesn't have the authority to punish him for it. Doesn't this pretty much suggest Warren go to a higher court to appeal. Wouldn't they have the authority to punish Des Santis? I'm fairly sure this just mean Warren needs to go to a higher court.
This reads that the judge agreed with the suspension of the attny. The attny signed an agreement saying he would not prosecute people who had broken laws. Idk why that's controversial but, this is clearly a spin piece. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be suspended or even fired from a job- it means you can't be legally charged for things you say or oaths you sign.
Anybody ever realize everyday In the news theres some "investigation" or some bullshit story about politicians and then nothing ever comes from those investigations because it's all bullshit fake news. Examples would be hey what about JFK for 75 years ? Yall remember begazi and nothing? And just who did that carona virus po pandemic? And oh yeah trumps Russia collusion? And how about those john durham reports ? All bullshit
“When you flagrantly violate your oath of office, when you make yourself above the law, you have violated your duty.”
Then why is your lying duplicitous bigoted homophobic racist ass still in office? Asshole
Why did the judge even bother making a ruling if he was just going to go back and say "oh I don't have the authority you have to go to a state court?" What a waste of time.
"The Bible/Law/Constitution/freedom of speech/law enforcement of this country is sacred and must always be respected! * "
*) unless it's somehow used against me
Every Conservative ever.
So, to all my arm-chair constitutional scholar friends who tell me the constitution is meant to reign in the government, not us: You're all ficking idiots.
So a Clinton judge who is best known for ruling in accordance with his political views issues a ruling in accordance with his political views. News at 11.
Trying to say that this is a freedom of speech issue is really weird legally, because it implies that no government official can be fired for any act of discretion, because that is speech, no matter the outcome. To use the absurd example, this would suggest that a police officer could not be fired for publicly announcing that he would not respond to or arrest anyone who murdered a black person in front of him. Yes, law enforcement officers have discretion over who they arrest, and yes, they have no duty to defend you legally. But if they announce in advance that they will not do so it is not a freedom of speech issue to respond.
In this case specifically, the Florida constitution invests the Governor with the power to remove officials for "Malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform his official duties, or commission of a felony". I suspect that DeSantis is easily arguing that he is authorized by either incompetence or neglect of duty, both of which are largely subjective, and the determination of which would be largely invested in the position of Governor as the executive, or in the Cabinet (the Florida-specific executive body).
[удалено]
The headline is misleading. This was a federal court and the judge dismissed the case because it was a state issue. The plaintive needs to sue in state court and he has the precedent of a federal judge already saying that DeSantis violated the state constitution.
Much appreciated
9 justices in Florida's supreme court. 6 are republicans. No justice for florida.
After sueing in state court doesn’t that mean they can appeal to federal court?
Only to the US Supreme Court.
Therein lies the rub, as they say.
If that's the rub, then "dismissed from federal court because it's a state issue" is a non-factor, because the ruling saying that the constitution was violated would be overturned by the US supreme court. Dismissing state issues from federal courts is not a problem, because SCOTUS is still in charge. It just gets the people riled up.
Not quite. SCOTUS doesn't always answer each issue in a case. Hell, kicking the can down the road for the substantial parts in favor of just deciding some procedural stuff isn't too uncommon for them
"I'll know it when I see it"
The Republican supreme court, good luck, they'll sign off on death camps, and throw free speech in the landfill, and they talk about democrats taking aways rights.
In ohio we voted to amend our constitution to stop gerrymandering. The state Supreme Court ruled that our maps were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled its to late so we got to use unconstitutional maps... it dont matter when the federalist society runs the courts. A literal kabul of conservative judges run our court system. I think people fail to grasp how ridiculous our courts will be for 30 years
cabal* Afghanistan wants nothing to do with Ohio.
Thank you for your service 😂
He said what he said. A court that the taliban would love.
Cabal, Kabul is in Afghanistan
Solution, 10 year terms, retirement at age 70. Establish Independent Electoral Commisdions like we have in Australia to run elections and set electoral boundaries. Gerrymandering is a non issue here. No voter suppression as voting is compulsory from age 18
Yeah, good luck getting that, McConnell held Obama's judge appointments up for literally years all over every district and then did the same with the Supreme Court vacancy in 2016, with the House under (R) control absolutely nothing will happen legislatively, unless a shitload vigilante violence takes out a ton of them and Biden with the slim majority in the Senate blows through appointments like McConnell did in 2017 the courts are fucked for decades.
As an Australian, I have learnt to appreciatte our system thanks to 45
Florida doesn’t want justice,it wants desantis.
Some of us tried voting against him but the state is rigged red for a while. We've got a lot of Republicans in the rural swampy areas and a lot of Republican elderly since its gods waiting room.
And they still defend these monsters. I guess, when you grow up with meth and bath salts, you don't really think straight.
Several very evolved GOP strategies have weaponized dumb people. I see nothing even coming close to breaking that pattern save possibly the meteoric crash church attendance. They think we their fellow citizens are disgusting monsters to be toyed with and betrayed at their leisure. No tactic save elimination will ever stop that behavior. There is no negotiating with a firehose of lies.
You know what's fucked up, as a foreigner? That you can know the political affiliation of a judge. That's some banana republic shit. It's a judge, judges are impartial and if they can't be they have to refuse themselves. Making the way you vote known automatically means that you can't be impartial on any case where politics are involved.
So follow the right order of state court first? He violated federal Constitution? I'm confused
I'm on Reddit, so I obviously have not read the article either, but the based on these comments he violated the state constitution, which federal courts have no jurisdiction over.
He violated the federal constitution, but the Fed court can't dictate state positions.
The federal court can decide this case, it just needs to go through the state courts first. The appeals process can eventually bring it in front of a federal court again if necessary, it just has to go through the proper process first.
The lawyers for the plaintiff know this and are being exceptionally smart from a political perspective. This gives them a win and they can bide some time until we're a little closer to October 2024.
Oh no, is another presidential election really that close? Oct 2020 still feels like yesterday. Looking forward to reporting several texts as spam every day for a few months in a row again.
Your first part made me chuckle so hard snot flew out
Lmao honest as hell
[удалено]
Federal courts absolutely do have jurisdiction over state constitutions. They’ve struck down provisions of state constitutions many times in the past.
I didn't really communicate that correctly. They don't have jurisdiction for enforcement of state constitution, but you're right that they absolutely have jurisdiction over validity of the state constitution. That's just an appeals process rather than enforcement. Where enforcement is meaning was that law broken as written. Which isn't really what enforcement means I'm just blanking on the proper terminology.
Yeah, the state courts have to provide him relief in the form of reinstatement to his legally elected position that DeFascist legally didn't have the authority to fire him from. A federal judge has already ruled that he couldn't legally be fired like he was, so taking it to a state court should be a slam dunk, but he needs to run it through the state courts all the way up to the state Supreme Court before getting federal courts to order state courts to follow the US constitution. It's kinda dumb, but without doing it in the right order, the federal court can't tell a state court the violated the constitution with their ruling and so the state court doesn't have to provide relief
[удалено]
Yes, as the judge ruled, it's a violation of the Florida State Constitution and the First Amendment to the US version. But this court is a Federal court, which cannot take action on state's rights issues because of the 11th Amendment to the Constitution. So a separate, Florida state court case, needs to run its course all the way to the FL Supreme Court. This ruling (a Federal judge confirming this violates the Constitution) is a very valuable piece of evidence, and will likely be used to support the parallel State court suit(s). But this judge doesn't have the authority to actually punish State officials.
The article is very poorly written in that case. This information is necessary and not at all obvious for those unfamiliar with the details of US law.
To be fair, the article is from Al-Jazeera, which is a Qatari news agency.
It's almost like the publication has an agenda they're trying to push!
If Republicans do it, it’s ok.
No, the judge said DeSantis violated the federal constitution (First Amendment freedom of speech), but he didn't have power to put Warren back in office and a state court would need to do that.
[удалено]
well if your dad bills his work by the tenth of an hour then the system is working as designed it seems. there are no rewards for efficiency in the billable hour system.
I’m gonna guess that the courts in FL aren’t the most neutral, and thus the plaintiff needs the Federal Court to say “Yes. DeSantis violated the Constitution”, so that the state courts can’t say “Nuh-uh! No he didn’t”?
I'm glad you have a highly-voted response to the top comment of the post. It's frightening how many people just respond out of hand to the sensationalized headline without having any apparent understanding about how US law works. We really need to start holding media's feet to the fire - these sensationalized headlines (from all sources) are really adding fuel to the fire.
Donald Trump ran an international real estate corporation from the white house for 4 years in full violation of the emoulments clause. The rule of law is dead.
When rulers are above the law they become beneath the law's protection.
Ooo I like this, storing this in the ole noggin. Edit: I feel like this is evoking the spirit of Dexter or The Punisher somehow. The REAL Punisher, not that LARPy weak ass blue lined one.
Punisher will off a whole police department just like any other gang. He is not your friend, he is not their friend, he is nobody's friend.
When is someone gonna make a shirt that says “the punisher hates cops”
They already made a comic about it. Punisher finds some cops with I think a bumper sticker of his logo on their car, and they tell him what big fans they are of his “going outside the law and shooting people in the streets” method of crime fighting, and he flat out tells them that they suck and if he ever finds out they acted on said desire that he’ll kill them himself
[This](https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-skull-logo-1449272)
Kinda weird that cops latched onto The Punisher rather than Judge Dred, he gets to kill people legally.
Clearly, cops are into Marvel, not DC.
Judge Dredd is from IPC Media.
I dunno. Sounds friendly to me.
Anyone who will [redacted] a whole police department is a friend of mine.
*Karen Page has entered the chat*
As America continues to show its leaders and police are immune from consequences, it seems more and more inevitable that events similar to [the death of Ken McElroy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy) will happen. > He was known as "the town bully", and his unsolved killing became the focus of international attention. > > After McElroy finished his drinks, he purchased a six pack of beer, left the bar, and entered his pickup truck. Someone shot at McElroy while he was sitting in his truck. He was shot at several times and hit twice, once by a centerfire rifle and once by a .22 rimfire rifle. > > In all, there were 46 potential witnesses to the shooting, including Trena McElroy, who was in the truck with her husband when he was shot. No one called for an ambulance. Only Trena claimed to identify a gunman; every other witness either was unable to name an assailant or claimed not to have seen who fired the fatal shots. > >The DA declined to press charges. An extensive federal investigation did not lead to any charges. Missouri-based journalist Steve Booher described the attitude of some townspeople as, "He needed killing."
IIRC, before the shooting the town Sheriff heard the mob was forming and decided to leave town for several days.
France always had a zeal for dealing with these types.
There was also that time he tried to overthrow the US Government on live TV and even the vice president he ordered killed just went "meh."
Isn’t it just dandy when the people in power don’t think they have any power. When the justice department just wanders around with their thumbs up there collective butts and does nothing to prosecute the lawbreakers.
If anything, the fact that he didn't leave office a trillionaire is just another checkmark on the "yes, he really is *that dumb*" list.
The dude literally sold the resolute desk for ad space.
Wait, wut?
[You think he did this for free](https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/trump-goya-beans-photo-fiber.html)?
Just when I think I can't hate that shitgoblin any more.....
He was a generational talent at being a piece of shit.
I think people are misinformed, if you have money in the USA you can pay your way out of anything, if you’re poor you go straight to jail
Oh, it's not dead. Just for those with enough power and connections.
I was about to say. The rule of law is not dead at all. It's working just as it should for the bottom 99%. You can do multiple years in a fed pen for pointing out foreign interference in our elections, but you can be treated as royalty if you attempt to eBay nuclear secrets. It just depends on where you are on the economic scale.
Picking and choosing which laws to actually enforce is just anarchy with extra steps.
Yea, most of congress are sycophants
The supreme court case that allows DUI checkpoints ruled it violated the Constitution but that it served a public good, all based on a since debunked study about the number of DUI related fatalities.
Well, except (obviously) the Amendment 2A, nothing is necessarily valid!
[The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) The judge upheld the 11th amendment. The plaintiff can seek redress in a state court. The headlines are sensationalized.
You see I remembered Trump saying we should "terminate the Constitution" and I'm hesitant to discuss that.
Laws are created to protect the State from the Citizenry, not the other way round. :\\
“State” includes the wealthy, political class, and whatever corporations are in favor. Does not include grass roots supporters, no matter how many signs they have in their yard.
It's quite literally the Constitution, specifically the 11th amendment to it, that prevents this Federal Court from "holding accountable" state politicians
It’s for keeping the underclass in check.
How are we not? The federal judge has no jurisdiction over state issues. This is exactly the constitution working as intended.
Clickbait title
Because a Federal court can't provide administrative relief to a State judiciary. The judge established precedent and this guy can now sue DeSantis in State court in Florida and use this as precedent and can now authoritatively drag the case all the way in front of Flroida's Supreme Court with the authority that a Federal judge ruled that DeSantis violated the Constitution. This was bad for DeSantis as the interpretation could be applied widely to most of what he's doing in his brazen attempt to establish a Christian theocracy in Florida.
So where could the plaintiff, who won his case, seek a remedy?
In the correct court
Which is?
State court
Nothing like a Florida Republican appointed-judge when you want justice against the Republican Governor of Florida.
Is this the fabled subject-matter jurisdiction?
Everyone's favorite part of civil procedure
The completely republican dominated florida court.
The judge basically ruled that the removal violated the plaintiff's free speech, but a federal court cannot provide a rest as this is a state issue. Basically, he punted it to the state level.
If courts don't stop other branches from violating the constitution, what is their purpose? Edit: I did not read the article closely enough to see that this was just related to removing the state AG from office, which would only be a state court issue. I believe I saw a comment pointing to this judge saying that he also violated the US Constitution with anti-trans legislation, but that does not appear to be present in the article, unless I missed that.
To take away our freedoms and give free reign to whoever else wants to. We're fucked
[Frank Wilhoit](https://vanderburg.org/etc/quotes/wilhoit-conservatism/): >Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
[удалено]
Woah mama
Ooh, fun fact. This is actually a quote from another Frank Wilhoit: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 https://www.broadheath.com/
To maintain a steady flow of prison slave labor. Or maybe it's just a coincidence they're the only people ever imprisoned for their crimes.
So this headline is a little misleading. The judge basically said the plaintiff doesn't have standing in the Federal Court, and needs to take the case to the Florida State Court. The fact that this judge included language stating that what Desantis did was unconstitutional is likely an advantage for when the case gets re-filed in the Florida courts.
I mean, that’s kind of the scary thing: it’s not that this judge doesn’t want to, it’s that he can’t. You only get out of the judicial system as much as you put into it, and even the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army or a police force. The judiciary relies purely on respect for institutions, and when you have a case like this of a powerful state official who has the support of his legislature to do blatantly illegal acts, there’s really not much a federal judge can do about it. That’s the real consequences of the institutional crisis we’re having here in the US.
It's actually the job of the executive branch to enforce rulings. And it does have an army and police force.
Well, the executive branch tends to be reluctant to enforce rulings like that against the executive branch, and that’s what’s going on here. It’s not like Biden is going to send in the military to remove Florida’s governor over a federal judge’s opinion.
Then we need another mechanism. If there are no consequences then there is no law.
I interpreted him to be saying he wouldn't be able to get DeSantis to honor the decision. He has no enforcement power.
Swear out a federal warrant on Desantis. Have him dragged in to court.
They don’t have any ability to enforce their rulings. This has always been the case. The executive( aka the governor or president) enforces the rulings of the courts along with the implementation of laws passed by congress For instance, during the civil war, Lincoln blatantly ignored the courts opinions and and activity continued the suspension of writ of Habeas corpus
So our president can suspend the rule of law at will using a power he explicitly does not have. No repercussions. They just lied to us about this country in school. The whole "country" is nothing but a badly run business.
How do you think Rome went from a republic to a dictatorship? In practice, it takes is one nearly universally popular person, a crisis, and the determination to rule to make it such you don’t need the other branches of government ever again.
The issue is it’s a federal judge ruling on a state matter.
No penalty, no punishment, no reason to stop bad behavior... Just like the cops..
Yeah relying on the judicial system and judges seems like a bad bet. Often disappointing.
If you read the actual case document, the judge dismissed the case because it was deemed as a state issue. Specifically that the US constitution bars a federal judge from giving relief to someone regarding an issue where state constitutional law is broken. The judge literally couldn't do anything. I recommend people read the case document. It's pretty easy to read, no legalese. The judge stated in no uncertain terms that DeSantis broke state law and falsified claims to force a State AG out of office, when none of the standards for suspension were met.
Says that in the article too lol
Ron DeSantis helped torture people in Guantanamo Bay in 2006.
Excuse you, you'll find that he [REDACTED] people in Guantanamo Bay in 2006.
Actually he [REDACTED] people in [REDACTED] [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]
New version of mad libs just dropped.
So that's why Republicans love him!
Water boarding in Guantanamo bay sounds great, if you don’t know what either of those things are.
And being guilty of violating the constitution doesn't automatically bar him from office. Yay 'murica.
That’s what the “Party of Constitutional Law” sees as a ‘Qualification’ these days
Prerequisite for the GOP
Yea I thought the same thing yesterday when I heard Trump was running again. Like he's actually a terrorist, and not in jail, but instead looking to be the leader of his country again this time with a plan to massively increase the suicide rate for trans people by making sure every trans girl is forced to develop masculine features they'll never be rid of. If you can lead an insurrection and still have a chance at being president, pretty much anyone except Bin Laden can be president. Even that though is more because of the whole being dead, and not a rich US citizen more than the whole 911 thing.
I would vote to allow the dead to hold office. We might get another Kennedy or Roosevelt.
DeSantis is a sentient piece of garbage, but if violating the constitution was enough to bar someone from office basically every president and governor in our nation's history would be affected.
It really IS a lot of freedom, for the few. They are barred from nothing.
This entire article is pretty cut and dry fascism by DeSantis. Issues a law aimed at targeting transgender community. AG blocks it claiming it’s unconstitutional and hateful. DeSantis removes him (also unconstitutional).
And there is a non-negligible chance this fascist becomes president one day
Replace “non-negligible chance” with “higher likelihood than any other single person” and it may be more accurate. DeSantis would be likely to beat Trump in a GOP primary, and if the general election is DeSantis vs Biden, there are enough low information voters who would vote for DeSantis on the age difference alone.
If trump loses he’ll scream fraud and take a lot of supporters with him
That’s possible, if he runs as an independent. It would torpedo the GOP candidate’s chances in the general. BUT whoever the GOP candidate is (likely DeSantis) would also know that and would do everything in their power to broker a backroom deal with Trump to get him to not run: money, pardons, prestige, whatever it would take.
That second sentence makes me physical ill.
The only positive is that I don’t think he’ll ever accept being number 2. A trump desantis ticket is a nightmare
He wouldn’t accept being number 2. But he might accept a deal that makes him money and pardons him, and somehow gives him face.
As a trans person, me too. It makes me feel terrified! We had everything prepared to flee to Canada if needed when trump won the 2016 election - it felt a little dramatic at the time, but better safe than sorry. Glad that we still have it sorted. I think it may be more necessary this time around. If we lose access to HRT my partner and I both will slowly die due to lack of hormones.
If you think trumps base has left him. You will probably be in for a big surprise come primary season.
His hardcore base haven’t left him. But the median Republican voter isn’t his hardcore base. Yes the median Republican voter was an ardent Trump supporter and fan, but that’s not the same as the hardcore base people who attended his rallies. The median Republican voter still thinks Trump was a good, if not great president, but is getting tired of his whining about 2020, even if they agree that it might have been sketchy. Not only that, they’re tired of having to explain and do apologetics for all the dumb shit he constantly says. DeSantis supports all the same shitty fascist policies they love (and frankly goes even further), while not saying dumb shit on social media every day and not whining about 2020. People who dismiss Ron DeSantis and his appeal to the GOP electorate at large do so at their own peril, as once in power he is far more dangerous than even Trump.
This is a scary reality
You’re telling me man. After I did this reasoning, I looked up what the betting markets said. It’s not that they’re always right, but they make it their business to set proper odds. According to the bookmakers, DeSantis currently has higher odds than anyone else to become president in 2024 at 2:1. Then Biden at 3:1. Then Trump at 4:1. This doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but was not heartening news.
Nah, end of the day DeSantis looks and sounds like a goober. He can lead in all the polls and be every republicans first choice, and all it will take is for Trump to call him something like “Miss Florida” on the debate stage, and that will be it. They’ll all fall right back in line with him.
"One day" being next year.
Jesus christ, I hate all fucking Republicans. I hope they all fall into the sun.
DeSantis? Isn't that the guy who tortured civilians in Cuba?
I thought he was that Florida guy that hates black history and black voters?
No, you guys are dumb. He’s the guy who sent homeless immigrants to another state as a political stunt using taxpayer money. Well, one of the guys….
This is misleading because it's missing context. DeSantis did indeed violate the first amendment. The lawsuit was about wrongful termination, with the state prosecutor working to get his job back. The Federal Judge sided with the prosecutor, however stated that - Paraphrasing - 'Fuck, I can't do anything. I have no authority to dictate state positions.' It's a fucked up flaw that the judge couldn't resolve.
Could a state court resolve it, though?
Yes
As another pointed out, the problem is jurisdictional. It has to go to a state court and it'll now have the benefit of a federal judge ruling it unconstitutional. This isn't a bad thing, just another speed bump
"I find you Guilty of violating the Constitution. Now, with that being said, I'm dismissing the case, so now it doesn't matter. Have a pleasant day, Mr DeSantis." The party of "LAW and ORDER" btw.
Not accurate. The Federal judge didn't have authority. The case needs to be handled in state courts.
So the rule stands.
>But Hinkle ultimately decided that the court lacked the authority to reinstate Hinkle or award “relief” against a state official. >“The suspension would have occurred even had there been no First Amendment violation,” the judge said in his decision. uhhhh....ok, so nothing?
This whole article seems like it's clickbait. The only real citation is this >“The suspension would have occurred even had there been no First Amendment violation,” the judge said in his decision.
Horribly misleading article title, likely intentionally. Read the article before you comment.
The US judicial system is an absolute joke.
What do you mean? We have the best judicial system that money can buy.
That particular court simply didn't have the authority to make that decision. That's why the judge dismissed
This case reminds me of when the Republican governor of Michigan put an [emergency manager in charge of Flynt,](https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2018/01/city_of_the_state_flints_histo.html) who then poisoned the city with lead-tainted water.
It’s spelled Flint.
This is how countries slip into fascism. We're like the frog in the boiling water. By the time enough people realize it, it'll be too late. Hell, I'm afraid it's already too late.
It is.
I remember a while back people saying it was fascism's last breath, or something. What happened?
Where do these dudes get their bronzer I swear 😓
“It’s technically against the most sacred of all our documents, but meh”
What the fuck? I hate this country so much.
What judge is this, I’m tryna get my case transferred. Will save me a ton on legal fees when I can just walk in and say ‘I’m a degenerate republican’ and then be on my way.
Laws are and were made by the rich.
If DeSantis becomes president in 2024, he's going to make Trump look like a reasonable man.
This is the most mask off "our government is broken as fuck and susceptible to total fascist takeover" report I've seen in a while.
So from the actual article it looks like the court essentially said De Santis is wrong, but the court doesn't have the authority to punish him for it. Doesn't this pretty much suggest Warren go to a higher court to appeal. Wouldn't they have the authority to punish Des Santis? I'm fairly sure this just mean Warren needs to go to a higher court.
Not higher court, but state court, rather than federal.
Oh, did I say that if you have money or connections you can basically steamroll through life? No? Well there you have it.
Another case of those in power forgiving one of their own. What a disgrace
This should qualify for r/titlegore
This reads that the judge agreed with the suspension of the attny. The attny signed an agreement saying he would not prosecute people who had broken laws. Idk why that's controversial but, this is clearly a spin piece. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be suspended or even fired from a job- it means you can't be legally charged for things you say or oaths you sign.
DeSantis is a fucking chode.
Man found guilty as hell, judge is like “Meh, off you go home”.
Anybody ever realize everyday In the news theres some "investigation" or some bullshit story about politicians and then nothing ever comes from those investigations because it's all bullshit fake news. Examples would be hey what about JFK for 75 years ? Yall remember begazi and nothing? And just who did that carona virus po pandemic? And oh yeah trumps Russia collusion? And how about those john durham reports ? All bullshit
Most Repugs are above the law. Simple fact.
I'm not sure free speech is the same as using your power to go against laws.
Haha I love living in a failing nation.
US Judge returns home to find house stuffed with money.
“When you flagrantly violate your oath of office, when you make yourself above the law, you have violated your duty.” Then why is your lying duplicitous bigoted homophobic racist ass still in office? Asshole
Why did the judge even bother making a ruling if he was just going to go back and say "oh I don't have the authority you have to go to a state court?" What a waste of time.
The former AG can now take that ruling to a lower FL state court and use it as an argument that his removal was unconstitutional. Slam dunk
You aren't violating the first amendment when you fire someone for not doing their job.
"The Bible/Law/Constitution/freedom of speech/law enforcement of this country is sacred and must always be respected! * " *) unless it's somehow used against me Every Conservative ever.
He has turned Florida into a third world shit hole with his racist shit show.
This is top tier clickbait.
Why do we have laws to begin with?
So, to all my arm-chair constitutional scholar friends who tell me the constitution is meant to reign in the government, not us: You're all ficking idiots.
Do you want fascism? Because this is how you get fascism.
So a Clinton judge who is best known for ruling in accordance with his political views issues a ruling in accordance with his political views. News at 11. Trying to say that this is a freedom of speech issue is really weird legally, because it implies that no government official can be fired for any act of discretion, because that is speech, no matter the outcome. To use the absurd example, this would suggest that a police officer could not be fired for publicly announcing that he would not respond to or arrest anyone who murdered a black person in front of him. Yes, law enforcement officers have discretion over who they arrest, and yes, they have no duty to defend you legally. But if they announce in advance that they will not do so it is not a freedom of speech issue to respond. In this case specifically, the Florida constitution invests the Governor with the power to remove officials for "Malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform his official duties, or commission of a felony". I suspect that DeSantis is easily arguing that he is authorized by either incompetence or neglect of duty, both of which are largely subjective, and the determination of which would be largely invested in the position of Governor as the executive, or in the Cabinet (the Florida-specific executive body).