DeSantis claimed that he fired Warren because the prosecutor had supposedly adopted a blanket policy not to prosecute certain types of criminal cases. But Warren had not adopted any such policy, as the governor knew or should have known. But .... 2/
the judge found that DeSantis's actual, unstated and unadmitted, purpose in firing Warren was to gain political points for firing a "reform" prosecutor, regardless of how effective that prosecutor was, and regardless of the will of the voters who elected him. 3/
A governor targeting and removing an elected prosecutor on policy grounds is, as the judge explained, a clear violation of the Florida Constitution, thus explaining what DeSantis has lied about his actual motive for removing Warren. 4/
But the 11th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as it has been construed by the Supreme Court, did not allow the federal court hearing the case to order DeSantis to reinstate Warren on the ground of the governor's violation of the Florida Constitution. 5/
Furthermore, unlike the Florida Constitution, the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit a governor from targeting a local elected official on account of his reasonably held -- and voter endorsed -- law enforcement policies, as DeSantis did. Accordingly the judge reasoned .... 6/
he was compelled to rule in DeSantis's favor, despite the fact that DeSantis actual purpose was so problematic that DeSantis will not even admit it. 7/
Additionally, the Court found that DeSantis also targeted Warren for certain First Amendment protected speech contained in a statement he signed onto related to reproductive rights and the targeting of transgender persons. 8/
But while such retaliation against a public official for First Amendment protected speech violates the U.S. Constitution, that was another violation without a remedy in federal court, the Judge ruled. This was because, as explained, the Judge ... 9/
reasoned -- even if Warren had not made the statements DeSantis didn't like -- the governor would nonetheless have fired the prosecutor for the heinous, but federally permissible, reason that he did not like Warren's law enforcement policies. 10/
In sum, DeSantis got away with firing Warren for a reason that is so problematic he won't admit it. and that violates state law. DeSantis, of course, is touting his "victory." 11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Dean Chemerinsky derided critics of the bigoted policy as "outside agitators". By defensively lashing out at critics, whom he plainly views as ideological opponents, he focused on the wrong problem. 1/ nyti.ms/3YG6ypX
Curiously, while he's focused his ire on those who have drawn attention to the policy, Dean Chemerinsky has stated that student groups that exclude speakers because they hold "particular views about Israel.... would be subject to sanctions." 3/
Ai Weiwei's experience in China demonstrated the beautifully disruptive possibilities of a medium like Twitter, as well as how rapidly, and completely, such expression can be crushed by an authoritarian power.1/
The gutting of Twitter could be deeply destructive to activists and others outside the West with very limited communications options. Here in the U.S., it will ultimately amount to only an inconvenience. 2
But Musk's authoritarian impulse, which he's repeatedly acted upon since taking control of Twitter - including when doing so is patently contrary to his own commerical interests -amounts to a very large red flag warning. 3/
Supreme Court's most reactionary Justices veer from one formalist theory, "originalism," to another (inconsistent) formalist theory, "textualism, depending upon the desired outcome. "Independent state legislature theory" is perhaps the most absurd iteration of textualism. 1/
It cannot be reconciled with the structure of the Constitution, and certainly has no historically cogent basis which could justify the theory on "originalist" grounds. 2/
@mjs_DC (correctly, imho) states that the case poses an intellectual challenge for Barrett, who was until recently a professor devoted to providing a much needed veneer of scholarly legitimacy to "originalism." The case threatens to strip away that thin veneer. 3/