What happens to the Republican Party now? (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

It’s like some folks have been trying to tell you this….all along…

The dems get criticized for not “going low” and pay the price. When one party is going all out on the “end justifies the means” and the other doesn’t they are at a distinct disadvantage…I don’t like that the dems are doing this but I can certainly understand why and there is a chance in some places it could backfire…but to be outraged? I mean….c’mon man….

"outraged"?
I believe I used the word "concerned"
*
I am not focusing on the Dems who are voting for Trump endorsed candidates.
I am focusing on the Rs voting for Trump's chosen candidates,
I am disappointed ....amazed...and concerned.

 

[coldseat]

DAs are supposed to enforce the laws on the books. They aren't allowed to pick and choose which laws they will prosecute. If he can't or won't do that, then he should move aside for someone who will.

DA's have prosecutorial discretion. But in this case, the DA didn't DO anything. He said he would oppose a law that wasn't even passed (at time he said it) and that was illegal under both US law and Florida law at the time. This is a straight up dictator move.

DeSantis had no justifiable reason to remove this DA. The only reason he did so was to stake out another culture war for his adoring fans and stroke his own power mad ego.

 

[eman623]

DA's have prosecutorial discretion. But in this case, the DA didn't DO anything. He said he would oppose a law that wasn't even passed (at time he said it) and that was illegal under both US law and Florida law at the time. This is a straight up dictator move.

DeSantis had no justifiable reason to remove this DA. The only reason he did so was to stake out another culture war for his adoring fans and stroke his own power mad ego.

Prosecutors have discretion whether to prosecute individual cases. They do not have discretion to refuse to enforce a law.

They also do not have authority to announce they will not enforce a future law passed by the legislature.

 

[coldseat]

Prosecutors have discretion whether to prosecute individual cases. They do not have discretion to refuse to enforce a law.

They also do not have authority to announce they will not enforce a future law passed by the legislature.

Where does the state of Flordia legally prohibt district attorney's from discussing or taking a policy position on "future" laws?

Where does the state of Florida give the governor legal authority to remove an elected prosecutor of discussing what he might do with future laws?

Where did this prosecutor say he wouldn't decide on a case by case basis? I heard him from his own mouth say the exact opposite.

This was a gross abuse of power by DeSantis. Full Stop.

 

[MT15]

DAs are supposed to enforce the laws on the books. They aren't allowed to pick and choose which laws they will prosecute. If he can't or won't do that, then he should move aside for someone who will.

Actually they do have prosecutorial discretion. Always have had this isn’t anything new. And what you are overlooking is that he hasn’t done anything but talk at this point. No reason to fire him for a viewpoint. Unless you’re a petty tyrant. Which DeSantis is.

Prosecutors decide not to enforce certain laws all the time. All the time. There are plenty of outdated, unenforceable laws on the books that they decline to prosecute.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Say one thing in public something else behind closed doors
================
MADISON, Wis. — It was an extraordinary public statement from a former state Supreme Court justice hired by Republican lawmakers to probe the 2020 election: Wisconsin should take a “hard look” at canceling Joe Biden’s victory and revoking the state’s 10 electoral college votes.


The comment in March drew applause from a packed hearing room in the state Capitol and praise from former president Donald Trump, whose allies have called for throwing out the results in Wisconsin and other battleground states even though constitutional scholars have scoffed at the notion as absurd.


But a newly unearthed memo shows that the former justice, Michael Gableman, soon afterward offered a far different analysis in private.

“While decertification of the 2020 presidential election is theoretically possible, it is unprecedented and raises numerous substantial constitutional issues that would be difficult to resolve. Thus, the legal obstacles to its accomplishment render such an outcome a practical impossibility,” Gableman wrote to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.


The contrasting public and private messages offer a glimpse into the dueling pressures facing Republicans in Wisconsin as they struggle to balance Trump’s baseless demands for reversing the election with the legal and political realities on the ground.

With competitive races this year for governor and U.S. Senate, the party is seeking to excite Trump’s base, which is largely supportive of calls to revoke Biden’s win, while not alienating centrist voters turned off by the inability of some to let go of 2020.

Gableman and a spokeswoman for Vos offered no comment on the memo.
The move for decertification is not quieting in Wisconsin and in some ways has picked up steam, even as legal experts treat the notion with scorn…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/02/wisconsin-trump-decertify-biden-2020/

 

[MT15]

Who paid for that ad? Yeah.

Okay, they weren’t hiding it. It was a negative ad for Gibbs. If someone was swayed to vote for Gibbs after seeing that ad, they were never going to vote for Meijer anyway. They can use the same ad for the general. The main point is that he’s too extreme for the district. Which he is. I was honestly braced for something at least a little bit deceptive. That wasn’t deceptive at all.

 

[eman623]

Where does the state of Flordia legally prohibt district attorney's from discussing or taking a policy position on "future" laws?

Where does the state of Florida give the governor legal authority to remove an elected prosecutor of discussing what he might do with future laws?

Where did this prosecutor say he wouldn't decide on a case by case basis? I heard him from his own mouth say the exact opposite.

This was a gross abuse of power by DeSantis. Full Stop.

Where does the state of Florida give a prosecutor discretion to refuse to enforce the laws?

 

[eman623]

I wonder if we're even talking about the thing. The attorney I'm talking about isn't speaking hypothetically. He's actively refusing to enforce an existing law on the books.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspends 'Soros-backed' state attorney who refused to enforce abortion ban​

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspends 'Soros-backed' state attorney who refused to enforce abortion ban

Ron DeSantis suspended Soros-backed 13th circuit state attorney, Andrew Warren, and said he was a far-left radical who refused to enforce Florida law.

www.foxnews.com

 

[coldseat]

Where does the state of Florida give a prosecutor discretion to refuse to enforce the laws?

He didn't do that! He only talked about "what he would do if..."

Prosecutorial discretion is a cornerstone of our laws in all levels of government. You stated it yourself in your question.

We're going to keep going in circles because you can't posted a bad response and can't accept that you are wrong.

 

[eman623]

Actually they do have prosecutorial discretion. Always have had this isn’t anything new. And what you are overlooking is that he hasn’t done anything but talk at this point. No reason to fire him for a viewpoint. Unless you’re a petty tyrant. Which DeSantis is.

Prosecutors decide not to enforce certain laws all the time. All the time. There are plenty of outdated, unenforceable laws on the books that they decline to prosecute.

The laws in question are not old or outdated. And he's being suspended for his actions (or lack thereof), not his viewpoint.

 

[eman623]

He didn't do that! He only talked about "what he would do if..."

Prosecutorial discretion is a cornerstone of our laws in all levels of government. You stated it yourself in your question.

We're going to keep going in circles because you can't posted a bad response and can't accept that you are wrong.

Are we talking about the same thing? See #3555. What hypothetical future laws are you referring to?

 

[MT15]

I wonder if we're even talking about the thing. The attorney I'm talking about isn't speaking hypothetically. He's actively refusing to enforce an existing law on the books.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspends 'Soros-backed' state attorney who refused to enforce abortion ban​

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspends 'Soros-backed' state attorney who refused to enforce abortion ban

Ron DeSantis suspended Soros-backed 13th circuit state attorney, Andrew Warren, and said he was a far-left radical who refused to enforce Florida law.

www.foxnews.com

He said it. But he hasn’t done it. So, yeah that’s being fired for a hypothetical. I didn’t realize it was already signed, though.

Even so, prosecutors have wide discretionary powers, or always have in the past. Just like teachers used to be free to express themselves in Florida, and companies used to be free to train their employees the way they liked. Now, there’s very little leeway for anyone; there doesn’t seem to be any aspect of life in Florida that DeSantis doesn’t want to control. Small government he ain’t.

And the “Soros-backed” is a hilarious touch. Good lord, that’s embarrassing.

 

[coldseat]

I wonder if we're even talking about the thing. The attorney I'm talking about isn't speaking hypothetically. He's actively refusing to enforce an existing law on the books.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspends 'Soros-backed' state attorney who refused to enforce abortion ban​

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspends 'Soros-backed' state attorney who refused to enforce abortion ban

Ron DeSantis suspended Soros-backed 13th circuit state attorney, Andrew Warren, and said he was a far-left radical who refused to enforce Florida law.

www.foxnews.com

You shouldn't get news from Fox News. They will always give you circumspect and bad information that is completely biases. They're not interested in informing you, they just want you to buy and spread their propaganda.

Here's a better source:

=====================

“The governor is trying to overthrow the results of a fair and free election, two of them actually,” he said later Thursday at a news conference. “People need to understand. This isn’t the governor trying to suspend one elected official. This is the governor trying to overthrow democracy here in Hillsborough County.”

Warren added that no cases regarding violations of the state’s new abortion law have been brought to his office.

In an executive order formally suspending Warren, DeSantis focused heavily on Warren’s signing of statements where prosecutors from across the country said they won’t use their offices to pursue criminal cases against seekers or providers of abortion or gender transition treatments.

More than 90 district attorneys, state attorneys general and other elected prosecutors across the U.S. have signed the letter saying they don’t intend to prosecute people for seeking, providing or supporting abortions.

........

Florida’s new abortion restriction became effective July 1. It prohibits abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions if the procedure is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life, prevent serious injury or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality. It does not allow exemptions in cases where pregnancies were caused by rape, incest or human trafficking.

Violators could face up to five years in prison. Physicians and other medical professionals could lose their licenses and face administrative fines of $10,000 for each violation.

Florida has not enacted laws criminalizing gender transition treatments for minors but “these statements prove that Warren thinks he has the authority to defy the Florida Legislature and nullify in his jurisdiction criminal laws with which he disagrees,” the executive order reads.

================

DeSantis suspends elected prosecutor over new abortion law

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has suspended the elected state prosecutor of Tampa for pledging not to enforce the state’s new 15-week abortion ban and for supporting gender transition treatments for minors.

apnews.com

 

[MT15]

The laws in question are not old or outdated. And he's being suspended for his actions (or lack thereof), not his viewpoint.

Read the executive order. He explicitly says he’s getting rid of him for his statements. and one of the laws he made statements about is, indeed, not on the books yet.

ETA: there is also the point that he is an elected official. DeSantis removing him isn’t really the proper remedy, especially since it’s for words, not deeds. The proper remedy is for the people of that county to decide whether to re-elect him or elect someone else if they’re unhappy with his performance. It’s not a great precedent, IMO.

 

[DaveXA]

Okay, they weren’t hiding it. It was a negative ad for Gibbs. If someone was swayed to vote for Gibbs after seeing that ad, they were never going to vote for Meijer anyway. They can use the same ad for the general. The main point is that he’s too extreme for the district. Which he is. I was honestly braced for something at least a little bit deceptive. That wasn’t deceptive at all.

I'm not buying it. And they did this in multiple states. Their strategy was clear. Try to get Trumpers to win primaries so they have a better chance of winning general elections. It's a stupid idea. A game the Democrats shouldn't be playing. And like I said earlier, this ends up being at the expense of true moderate Republicans. But hey, if they want to risk adding more Trumpers in Congress, .

 

[MT15]

I'm not buying it. And they did this in multiple states. Their strategy was clear. Try to get Trumpers to win primaries so they have a better chance of winning general elections. It's a stupid idea. A game the Democrats shouldn't be playing. And like I said earlier, this ends up being at the expense of true moderate Republicans. But hey, if they want to risk adding more Trumpers in Congress, .

Dave, do you honestly think anyone viewing that ad was going to vote for Meijer and then saw the ad and said, no, I’ll vote for Gibbs? It was negative against Gibbs in my opinion. People who liked that ad were never going to vote for Meijer. It would have set more independent-minded people against Gibbs than for him. You have to be a die-hard Trump fan to like that ad.

If all the ads were like this one, I really think it’s not nearly as big a deal as was being made of it. Sorta a double standard from the press, actually.

 

[FullMonte]

Say one thing in public something else behind closed doors
================
MADISON, Wis. — It was an extraordinary public statement from a former state Supreme Court justice hired by Republican lawmakers to probe the 2020 election: Wisconsin should take a “hard look” at canceling Joe Biden’s victory and revoking the state’s 10 electoral college votes.


The comment in March drew applause from a packed hearing room in the state Capitol and praise from former president Donald Trump, whose allies have called for throwing out the results in Wisconsin and other battleground states even though constitutional scholars have scoffed at the notion as absurd.


But a newly unearthed memo shows that the former justice, Michael Gableman, soon afterward offered a far different analysis in private.

“While decertification of the 2020 presidential election is theoretically possible, it is unprecedented and raises numerous substantial constitutional issues that would be difficult to resolve. Thus, the legal obstacles to its accomplishment render such an outcome a practical impossibility,” Gableman wrote to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.


The contrasting public and private messages offer a glimpse into the dueling pressures facing Republicans in Wisconsin as they struggle to balance Trump’s baseless demands for reversing the election with the legal and political realities on the ground.

With competitive races this year for governor and U.S. Senate, the party is seeking to excite Trump’s base, which is largely supportive of calls to revoke Biden’s win, while not alienating centrist voters turned off by the inability of some to let go of 2020.

Gableman and a spokeswoman for Vos offered no comment on the memo.
The move for decertification is not quieting in Wisconsin and in some ways has picked up steam, even as legal experts treat the notion with scorn…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/02/wisconsin-trump-decertify-biden-2020/

What needs to happen is....around the end of December 2024, these states need to all decertify their 2020 election results. This would mean that Donald Trump was the true president, and he could immediately take office. If he did not win the 2024 election, he would serve out the last month of his term, and then would be term-limit barred from running for election again. If he did win the 2024 election, a new election would be held to determine who would take office in January 2025, as Trump would be term-limit barred from being president.