Surely a DA can be sued for deliberately not charging a felon ...

[dogtag]

I read somewhere long ago (maybe that other Galaxy) that DAs
are obligated to ensure the law is upheld by prosecuting those
that commit crimes especially violent crimes. By refusing to
prosecute, it's not only a dereliction of duty on Gascon's part
but it also suggests incompetence and maybe corruption.
Chappelles should sue him or somebody should.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-felony.html

[Art]

Gascon is a disgrace. Unfortunately he is acting within his authority.

[dryheat]

Blacks being, ah, well...

[barretcreek]

A Federal judge in Pensacola has ruled against the Administration in a suit brought by Florida for not enforcing the immigration laws. But the real solution is vote 'em out.

Bonus point: Chappelle's security did a much better job of whoop-ass than the Majesty of the Law ever could.

[Allen]

A Federal judge in Pensacola has ruled against the Administration in a suit brought by Florida for not enforcing the immigration laws. But the real solution is vote 'em out.

Bonus point: Chappelle's security did a much better job of whoop-ass than the Majesty of the Law ever could.

So many times though it isn't an elected official who screws things up. It's the judges, or in many cases a single judge. This judge in Florida is trying to enforce our laws. Somewhere up the line it will be blocked by another (perhaps paid off) judge.

I saw that continuously during the Trump administration where a single appointed judge was able to block many of the things Trump wanted and needed to do.

If a judge (one person) can have this kind of authority we don't need a president or any other elected politician.

[dogtag]

The reins of power are in the hands of the President, the House, the Senate and the Judge.
If the Judge vetoes what the other three want to do, why can't they overturn the veto ?
That's how it normally works, and majority rules.

[Art]

The reins of power are in the hands of the President, the House, the Senate and the Judge.
If the Judge vetoes what the other three want to do, why can't they overturn the veto ?
That's how it normally works, and majority rules.

You are such a Brit.

This is not a Democracy (though it has democratic elements and has become more democratic over time) the majority doesn't always rule. It was set up that way through a series of compromises in the late 1700s. That's why Delaware and California have the same number of Senators, several presidents have been elected without a majority of the votes, and why 9 guys and gals who haven't been elected by anybody have a veto over almost everything.

[dogtag]

Do you know what "tongue in cheek" means ?
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone on this forum does.

[Art]

Do you know what "tongue in cheek" means ?
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone on this forum does.

Maybe I missed a bit in writing.

[dogtag]

It's just that what I suggested is just a pipe dream although why the Judge
gets to get the last word - especially activist ones who ignore the Constitution
in their rulings is still a valid question even if it's moot.

- - - Updated - - -

Gascon is now subject to recall. 400,000 signatures so far.