Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his team knew that many liberals would take issue with his decision to suspend State Attorney Andrew Warren. But the decision was the right one, and any argument to the contrary is a sorry attempt to deflect the attention of Florida voters away from the real issues.
Immediately following DeSantis’s announcement, various Democrats, right on cue, complained that DeSantis was ending democracy as we know it. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) claimed Warren’s suspension was “an extreme abuse of power” and “a new low.”
“The Republican agenda is clear: criminalize women’s healthcare, roll back our rights, and feed your political ambitions rather than the people you are elected to serve,” she claimed. “I will continue to stand up to this overreach and make plain just how extreme and reckless DeSantis and Republicans have become in a state that deserves so much better.”
Democratic Florida gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist also chimed in, calling DeSantis a “wannabe dictator who puts partisan politics first.”
“He doesn’t give a damn about women or average Floridians. It’s a flagrant abuse of power,” he said.
Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, another Democratic Florida gubernatorial hopeful, agreed and called the suspension “outrageous and dangerous.”
These attacks are mere emotional appeals meant to garner political points. Democrats are trying to make DeSantis’s suspension of Warren about abortion and women’s rights, but it has nothing to do with either. Warren was suspended because of his refusal to enforce one or more laws of the state of Florida, including Florida’s abortion restrictions and a rule forbidding medical professionals from performing experimental sex-change surgeries on minors.
However, Democrats have argued that Warren was within his rights because prosecutors have the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion. But this discretion is not without some limits. For example, in Ayala v. Scott, the Florida Supreme Court rejected a state attorney’s blanket claim that the decision not to seek the death penalty in any applicable cases fell under prosecutorial discretion. According to the court:
<bsp-quote data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1659718007675,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"0000016b-0662-db24-a17f-4e6771eb0000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1659718007675,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"0000016b-0662-db24-a17f-4e6771eb0000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"quote":"We decline the invitation because by effectively banning the death penalty in the Ninth Circuit—as opposed to making case-specific determinations as to whether the facts of each death-penalty eligible case justify seeking the death penalty—Ayala has exercised no discretion at all. As New York's high court cogently explained, "adopting a ‘blanket policy’ " against the imposition of the death penalty is "in effect refusing to exercise discretion" and tantamount to a "functional[ ] veto" of state law authorizing prosecutors to pursue the death penalty in appropriate cases. Johnson v. Pataki, 91 N.Y.2d 214, 668 N.Y.S.2d 978, 691 N.E.2d 1002, 1007 (1997).
Thus, under Florida law, Ayala’s blanket refusal to seek the death penalty in any eligible case, including a case that "absolutely deserve[s] [the] death penalty" does not reflect an exercise of prosecutorial discretion; it embodies, at best, a misunderstanding of Florida law.","_id":"00000182-6ee6-d34d-ab93-eeefebe50000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b92f10002"}”>We decline the invitation because by effectively banning the death penalty in the Ninth Circuit—as opposed to making case-specific determinations as to whether the facts of each death-penalty eligible case justify seeking the death penalty—Ayala has exercised no discretion at all. As New York’s high court cogently explained, “adopting a ‘blanket policy’ ” against the imposition of the death penalty is “in effect refusing to exercise discretion” and tantamount to a “functional[ ] veto” of state law authorizing prosecutors to pursue the death penalty in appropriate cases. Johnson v. Pataki, 91 N.Y.2d 214, 668 N.Y.S.2d 978, 691 N.E.2d 1002, 1007 (1997).
Thus, under Florida law, Ayala’s blanket refusal to seek the death penalty in any eligible case, including a case that “absolutely deserve[s] [the] death penalty” does not reflect an exercise of prosecutorial discretion; it embodies, at best, a misunderstanding of Florida law.Prosecutorial discretion does not cover blanket refusals to enforce one or more applicable criminal laws. Warren cannot pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce — that’s not how the rule of law works.
The governor’s decision in this case was based solely on this line of reasoning. Our justice system depends on the consistent and just application of the law. And if an attorney, especially one serving as a representative of the state, is openly vowing not to abide by the law, then he doesn’t deserve to keep his job — plain and simple.
Mr. Elad Hakim is an attorney and columnist. His articles have been published in the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller, the Federalist, American Thinker, and other online publications. He is also a regular guest on OANN’s Tipping Point and has appeared on Newsmax, the Jenna Ellis Show, Steadfast and Loyal Podcast with Allen West, The Dave Weinbaum Show, and Real America’s Voice.
