Did Ron DeSantis overstep his authority in "suspending" a Democrat elected by local voters to his second term as a regional prosecutor, DeSantis doing this because he wanted to, stated "reasons," and is an asshole? It is being tried in federal court, the overstepping question, not whether DeSantis is an asshole. It is Crabgrass's opinion DeSantis by his repeated public conduct has proven himself an asshole, but that is not a trial issue.

HE IS! But now to objective things of importance, aside from that informed opinion.

In a Nov. 29 report NY Times defines the situation -

 TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Last December, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida asked two high-level aides at a meeting in his office if any elected state prosecutors were “not enforcing the law.”

It was a brief and unprompted inquiry, one of the aides said later in a deposition. But it soon led to the Republican governor zeroing in on Tampa’s top prosecutor, Andrew H. Warren, a Democrat with a progressive policy bent. In August, flanked by law enforcement officers, Mr. DeSantis made the startling announcement that he was suspending Mr. Warren from office, chiefly for pledging that he would not prosecute those who seek or provide abortions.

Whether the suspension violated Mr. Warren’s free speech rights and represented an overreach of the governor’s executive authority are now questions before a federal judge in a trial that began on Tuesday in Tallahassee, the state capital. Mr. Warren had sued Mr. DeSantis, seeking to be reinstated.

“It’s been 117 days since the governor suspended democracy,” Mr. Warren said outside the federal courthouse in downtown Tallahassee before the trial got underway. “A trial is the search for the truth, and, in this building, the truth matters.”

[...] In the lead-up to the Nov. 8 election, Mr. DeSantis frequently told cheering crowds how he had suspended Mr. Warren for what he called incompetence and neglect of duty. Months earlier, Mr. DeSantis had enacted a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Actually, the Florida legislature passed such a statute, it was not DeSantis by executive order. NYT continuing -

Mr. DeSantis’s team argued that Mr. Warren had issued “blanket” policies against prosecuting minor crimes, as well as crimes involving abortions and gender-affirming care. Mr. Warren, who was the first witness to take the stand, said his policies were not blanket refusals but rather written to give prosecutors discretion. He characterized his ouster as political retaliation over his public disagreements with the governor.

Mr. Warren was one of 90 elected prosecutors across the country who in June signed a statement against criminalizing abortion that was put out by Fair and Just Prosecution, a group of elected prosecutors who espouse policies like reducing the use of fines, fees and bail and expanding alternatives to incarceration. He had also signed an earlier pledge not to criminalize transgender people and gender-affirming health care, which the group also disseminated.

Mr. DeSantis, who has repeatedly tested the boundaries of his executive authority, has been much more aggressive than his predecessors in suspending elected officials, who in prior administrations were most often removed from office when they had been criminally charged with wrongdoing. Under Florida law, a governor can suspend state officials for wrongdoing that includes neglect of duty, incompetence, malfeasance, drunkenness or commission of a felony.

The fast-tracked bench trial before Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the U.S. District Court in Tallahassee is expected to last from three to five days. The judge ruled last week that Mr. DeSantis, the defendant in the case, could not be called as a witness for Mr. Warren’s case in chief.

Mr. Warren’s lawyers could try to call Mr. DeSantis as a rebuttal witness, but Judge Hinkle, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, indicated last week that he would probably not grant such a request.

The losing side in the case is expected to appeal.

Internal texts, emails and other records obtained by Mr. Warren’s defense lawyers ahead of the trial, as well as depositions of some of Mr. DeSantis’s top aides, showed how the administration had quietly built its case for suspending Mr. Warren for months — and had considered how removing him from office would play in the public eye.

Suspending Mr. Warren “is likely to increase Warren’s profile,” read a chart listing “drawbacks” for the various actions the governor could take. Under “benefits,” the chart read: “A leftist prosecutor is removed from a position of power.”

[...] Mr. Warren, who was in his second term as the chief prosecutor for the 13th Judicial Circuit, testified on Tuesday that he had had no idea he was going to be removed from office.

He was overseeing a grand jury proceeding in Hillsborough County, where Tampa is located, on Aug. 4 when he received an email informing him of his suspension. Before reviewing the details, he went back to his office. A few minutes later, Larry Keefe, the governor’s public safety czar, and two sheriff’s deputies knocked on his door.

Mr. Warren said he had asked Mr. Keefe for a chance to review the governor’s order.

“You cannot have a chance to review,” Mr. Warren said Mr. Keefe had told him. “You need to leave your office immediately.”

Mr. Keefe was one of the aides in Mr. DeSantis’s office last December when the governor inquired about looking into the actions of elected state attorneys. The other was James Uthmeier, the governor’s chief of staff.

A day before the suspension, on Aug. 3, Mr. DeSantis gave his general counsel, Ryan Newman, handwritten edits to the proposed executive order suspending Mr. Warren, court records show. The governor had staff members add language describing abortion as the “dismemberment” of an “unborn child.” He also asked that the order list the other reasons for Mr. Warren’s suspension “before abortion.”

But Ray Treadwell, the governor’s chief deputy general counsel, said in a deposition that it had been Mr. Warren’s signing of the pledge not to prosecute people who obtain or provide abortions that had brought about his suspension.

“I will say emphatically that it was the abortion statement that drove our recommendation across the goal line,” Mr.Tredwell said.

 

[italics added] Politico's Nov. 29 report adds -

 

 TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Suspended prosecutor Andrew Warren took his battle against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to a federal court on Tuesday in the first day of a trial that’s exposing the machinations in how the governor’s office operates.

DeSantis suspended the Hillsborough County state attorney in August over a handful of moves the Democratic elected official made, including signing a pledge in June that he would not enforce the state’s abortion laws. Florida recently enacted a ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy without exceptions for rape or incest.

Warren contends that DeSantis’ move to suspend him in early August violated his First Amendment rights, and in the trial’s opening day he testified for more than three hours, including recounting the day he was suspended. On that day, Warren said he was met at his office by Larry Keefe, the governor’s public safety czar, who was accompanied by sheriff’s deputies and a demand that he leave immediately.

Keefe, who took the stand later in the day, however, provided some of the most illuminating testimony, saying he was the “primary driver” in getting Warren’s suspended. His inquiry started in the wake of DeSantis asking during a December 2021 meeting whether there were any Florida prosecutors not enforcing the law.

Keefe contended during his testimony that Warren was “crossing the line” for signing the statements on abortion — and another one saying he would not prosecute anyone for providing gender affirming care to transgender patients even though the state does not have any criminal laws dealing with that. Florida approved a rule banning gender-affirming treatment for minors several months after Warren was suspended.

“This wasn’t a one-off,” said Keefe, a former U.S. attorney who also directed the DeSantis administration’s contentious relocation of migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard. He said this statements regarding Warren were part of a “very problematic” trend from the ousted prosecutor. “I absolutely believed he needed to be suspended.”

But Keefe acknowledged several times on the stand that he never called Warren directly or communicated with anyone in Warren’s office to ask about the prosecutor’s statements. Warren and two top officials still working in the state attorney’s office said there wasn’t a blanket policy against prosecuting abortion or gender-affirming cases and they have not handled any such prosecutions. Warren’s team even noted a written policy that tells prosecutors to evaluate individual cases.

Keefe, who said he conducted a review of Warren’s actions but not an actual “investigation,” brushed aside the written policies. Instead, he contended that Warren was a “state attorney whose approach to his job was harmful” and that he was antagonistic to law enforcement, an opinion based on conversations he held with several people, including the current Hillsborough sheriff and the former Tampa police chief.

Warren had adopted policies that recommend against the prosecution of low level crimes such as trespassing and disorderly intoxication or moving ahead with charges that stem from initial police encounters where a pedestrian or bicycle rider is stopped for a non-criminal violation.

Keefe went so far as to suggest that there were problems with “violent” and “rampant crime” in Tampa and that keeping Warren on the job would lead to “chaos.”

Florida’s Constitution gives the governor the power to suspend elected officials for various reasons, including neglect of duty and malfeasance or commission of a felony. Previous governors have primarily suspended local officials who have been arrested, but DeSantis has embraced a wider use of the suspension powers. He first used it to remove Scott Israel, the Broward County sheriff, over how his office responded to the Parkland shooting. Under the Constitution, a suspended official can ask to be reinstated by the Florida Senate.

Warren, however, opted to fight the governor in federal court, a move that caught DeSantis’ own legal team off guard, according to depositions that have been filed ahead of the lead up of the trial. Most of Warren’s time on the stand included going over the operations of his office — as well as his stance on abortion and gender-affirming care and why he chose to sign onto statements that were put out by an advocacy group called Fair and Just Prosecution. The organization bills itself as a group that brings together local prosecutors promoting changes to the criminal justice system, but it has come under fire from conservatives because it is linked to a group that receives funding from billionaire donor George Soros.

Warren defended the abortion statement by saying he was more concerned about all-out bans on abortion and said he backed the one on gender-affirming care as saying he was opposed to discrimination against trans youth.

Moments before he entered the federal courthouse Tuesday morning, Warren told reporters that “there’s so much more at stake than my job. We’re not just fighting for me to do the job that I was elected to do. We are fighting for the rights of voters across Florida to have the elected officials of their choice. We’re fighting for free speech, the integrity of our elections and the very values of our democracy.”

[...] The trial is expected to last at least two more days. Warren wants U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle to restore to his job and place a permanent injunction against DeSantis’ executive order that suspended him.

 

Beyond that, readers can further web search.  Crabgrass's websearch =

andrew warren v. ron desantis pretrial briefing

 yielded this amicus brief online. 

Because most readers might not follow the link, the brief is briefly quoted, from its start -

 

INTEREST AND IDENTITY OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici are 115 legal scholars whose scholarship, teaching, and professional service focus on legal ethics, professional responsibility, and/or criminal procedure. Collectively, amici have authored hundreds of articles and other writings, including casebooks, on these subjects. Their academic work addresses the professional norms and expectations governing prosecutors, including those relating to prosecutorial discretion and accountability, as well as the mechanisms by which prosecutors are regulated to ensure accountability while preserving prosecutorial independence. Some of the amici have also participated in developing or revising the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function, which have guided prosecutorial discretion and standards of conduct for more than fifty years. 

Drawing on their expertise, amici, who join in their independent capacity and are listed in Appendix A to the Brief, offer a perspective which is broader than the parties regarding the extent to which the conduct in this case comports with relevant professional standards and democratic mechanisms. 

Amici submit State Attorney Warren’s transparent statements of policy and prosecutorial priorities are consistent with professional standards of conduct. Amici further submit that suspending State Attorney Warren for establishing priorities and expressing views threatens the very principles prosecutors vow to uphold, including prosecutorial independence.

The brief notes three proffered bases in the DeSantis executive order "suspending" Warren:

 (1) Warren’s signature on the Gender Statement “prove[s] that Warren thinks he has authority to defy the Florida Legislature and nullify in his  jurisdiction criminal laws with which he disagrees” even though the Florida Legislature has not enacted
any  criminal laws concerning transgender people or gender-affirming healthcare, see  EO at 3, ECF  No. 1-1;
 
(2) the Presumptive Non-Prosecution Policies “are not a proper exercise of  prosecutorial discretion” and “have the effect of usurping the province of the Florida Legislature to define criminal conduct …”  see  EO at 4, ECF No. 1-1; and
 
 (3) by signing the Abortion Statement, Warren has “declared intent” not to  prosecute abortion crimes and thus “there is no reason to believe that Warren will faithfully enforce the abortion laws of this State and  properly exercise his prosecutorial discretion on a ‘case-specific’ and ‘individualized’ basis.”
See  EO at 7, ECF No. 1-1. 

Then the brief notes

The Executive Order does not, however, point to any specific case State Attorney Warren declined to charge; nor does it seriously contend State Attorney Warren issued a blanket, categorical refusal to charge a particular kind of case. On these grounds, Governor DeSantis summarily suspended State Attorney Warren indefinitely from his elected Office and appointed a new State Attorney of his choosing.

Preempting voter choice two ways, the elected man ousted, no vote on replacement. DeSantis is . . . 

..........................................................

I already said it. 

The amicus brief states facts and argument, giving the best background to why Warren is suing to undo the executive order which he contests as overreaching and in breach of his rights. In derogation of well established norms of prosecutorial discretion. And an affront to voter rights. 

Warren is supported by outside help. The amici and others.

____________UPDATE____________

DeSantis is as much an authoritarian bully as Trump. With less roguish charm.

Not as bright. Over disciplined. Mediocre.

More thug than rogue.

Big Boss Ron and his thuggish looking toadies

Measure the man by that stunt he pulled with his fuck-the-felon voter putsch, while privately permissively toward his golf-cart elderly villagers who voted in two states while knowing it was wrong but only getting a wrist slap pretrial diversion as "punishment." BOTTOM LINE: Ron DeSantis can't tell election integrity from a hole in the ground.The lectern should be saying "fuck-the-felons and fuck every voter who voted for the initiative to restore former felon rights. I'm Big Boss Ron!"

Presidential? Or better fit to be Trump's Mar-a-Lago caddie or butler?

____________FURTHER UPDATE____________

What DeSantis did was serious and mean voter intimidation. And he was boastful about it. 

It is as easy to vent against DeSantis as it is against Ted Cruz.

They are similar. To understand what galls me the most, I imagine the two of them in a canoe, each paddling in the opposite direction because each wants things his way or no way, adamant, no matter what might make sense. Equal on the charm scale, neither unpinning the needle from zero. Bluster city.

That said, it appears interesting that Judge Robert L. Hinkle, the judge reported as presiding in the Warren v DeSantis trial, had previously in May 2020 held the Florida statute under which DeSantis had the various felon persons publicly arrested and shamed, an impermissible poll tax.

That was widely reported. 

So, Warren v. Desantis gets a trial judge capable of seeing through a smoke screen. 

Not a good sign for DeSantis playing heavyweight intimidator. Against the coarsely treated felons. Strike one. Against the self-motivated prosecutor setting office goals and policy under budget and as a dimension of prosecutorial discretion? Strike two?

We shall see.

Biggest surprise? Like Cruz, DeSantis got reelected.

.........................................

Coverage of Wednesday's day two of the trial - 

During day two of the trial, we heard stunning testimony from DeSantis’ top advisors 

First up was the governor’s chief safety czar – Larry Keefe – who oversaw the suspension and had numerous conversations with state attorneys and sheriffs across Florida, asking them if they knew of any state attorneys that weren’t enforcing the law.

Judge Hinkle zeroed in on if the conversations – and ultimately the suspension – were political.

The judge asked Keefe if any of the officials contacted were Democrats. Keefe paused before telling the court he couldn’t give specific examples.

Next to the stand was an unpaid intern for the governor who wrote up the controversial memo weighing the benefits and drawbacks of suspending Warren.

Communications director in the executive office of the governor, Taryn Fenske testified the suspension wasn’t politically motivated and would have happened even if Warren was a Republican.

The trial will continue on Thursday.

Wasn't political? Get real. It was over abortion politics, Keefe already admitted that, day one.

Realistically, would a Republican prosecutor, in Florida, anywhere there, have signed pledges originating from the National Advocacy Group Fair and Just Prosecution - pledges against abortion restrictions and transgender bias? No way!

That communications director is a joke of a human, saying it was not political. She did mean it was not overtly partisan, but the poll tax - felon intimidation was not overtly partisan either, just poor predominantly ill-informed black folks rounded up, shamed. That felon arrest ploy, stinking of voter intimidation politics.

And the judge on top of the trial, interjecting his own clearly relevant question. It looks dark for DeSantis' chance to prevail. Again, however, we have to wait.

___________FURTHER UPDATE__________

RESULT OF FURTHER WEB SEARCH

The 11th Circuit (ultimately) reversed the District Court's determination that a poll tax was at issue; Jones v. Governor of Florida, 975 F. 3d 1016 (1th Cir. 2020) rev'g, Id. 950 F. 3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020). The circuit court en banc reversed a circuit court per curium panel; read both, decide in your mind what is legitimate and what is bogus.

Wrong ultimate resolution in the opinion of many, but the last word from the federal courts is DeSantis prevailed, judicially. In the minds of level-headed citizens, opinions differ. DeSantis had no real cause to do this except to intimidate and to hence bias voting in Florida. Or that is the opinion Crabgrass holds; and with that whole exercise in mind, it is more proof DeSantis is an asshole. 

Opinions can differ.

 The entire set of "Jones" decisions can be read here.

DeSantis precipitates pissing matches, Jones and now Warren. The final viewpoint Crabgrass cares to share, Andrew Warren now has a recognized name and stature statewide and nationwide, and should run next cycle for Governor of Florida. It might be a vacant seat if the Republican party nominates DeSantis for Pres. or VP; otherwise Warren will have a shot at ousting DeSantis unless Florida has a two-term Guv limit in place. There would be a form of justice if Warren were to run and win.

Florida is a swamp. Warren is one of the good people there. The 11th Circuit is suspect of its own swamphood. End of Jones story. 

The Warren story is still quite preliminary, being only now at trial.

____________FURTHER UPDATE___________

Post trial -

As the trial wrapped up Thursday evening, Judge Hinkle told the lawyers he would begin reviewing the case in two weeks, the earliest his schedule would allow.

Any news later will be separately posted, not added here as an UPDATE.

 

Stuart Rhodes, Oath Keeper, jury verdict of guilty for seditious conspiracy.

Breitbart - Nov. 29, 2022. AP feed.

A Scott Jensen FOX 9 exclusive - Following his candidacy for governor, and ultimate loss to Tim Walz, Dr. Scott Jensen sat down with FOX 9’s Theo Keith to discuss his views on the future of the Republican party, and if he plans to run again.

The headline is from captioning of an online item Published November 16, 2022, titled, "Scott Jensen says Minnesota GOP can't win without new stance on abortion;" the item stating in large measure -

(FOX 9) - Scott Jensen, who lost to Gov. Tim Walz in last week's midterm election, says he and other Republicans erred on the abortion issue and [...] "The hardline position on abortion isn’t going to win,[...] So, if that’s where a group of people say that’s where we have to stay, and we have to do everything we can to ban abortions legally, completely, I think that there’s no way we win."

Jensen lost to Walz by 193,000 votes, or 7.7 percentage points. The race turned when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, leaving abortion access up to states.

While trying to win the GOP endorsement this spring, Jensen said he would try to ban abortion. He later shifted his stance, but Democrats spent millions of dollars on an avalanche of television attack ads using his previous comments.

[...] "I remember talking to someone who provided some very sensible advice, and he said, ‘You need to respond to this within 48 hours,’" Jensen said. "I said, 'We have no capability of doing that.' We didn’t have production capabilities, we didn’t have scripts, ideas, and we didn’t have the money."

Jensen said his wife, Mary, predicted around the Fourth of July that the abortion issue would hurt his campaign. But he shrugged off the political potency of the issue on the advice of his inner and outer circle that were "demanding" that he focus on inflation, crime, and education while believing the abortion issue would "fizzle" before Election Day.

[...] Jensen said Republicans need to support some initiatives he started talking about on the campaign trail this fall: making birth control available over the counter with a $10 per month maximum copay, paid maternity leave, and a tax credit for adopting a child.

Jensen, who served a single term in the Minnesota Senate before launching his bid for governor, said he had no plans to run for anything in the future.

"The Democrats have a chance now to move forward with a lot of their initiatives. They earned it. They won," he said. "And I think Republicans are going to have to watch and ask themselves, 'Hmm, how do we change that in the future?'"

[italics added] 

Other Republicans. We hope for and await a similar reasoned expression of fact from abortion opponents who also ran statewide and lost, specifically Catholic GOP candidates Matt Birk, James Schultz, and Ryan Wilson. Are they as practical and open in hindsight to the clear majority will of the people as Jensen? Or is there an impediment to their outlooks, an impediment to realizing after losing, "The hardline position on abortion isn’t going to win,[...] So, if that’s where a group of people say that’s where we have to stay, and we have to do everything we can to ban abortions legally, completely, I think that there’s no way we win." And a failure, hiding from disclosure of who you really are, that is worse:

Abortion

Blaha: “Health and human services are a significant part of local government budgets, so we need an auditor who understands that healthcare includes abortion. An auditor pushing an anti-abortion agenda could disrupt local access to reproductive care, particularly for low-income Minnesotans. I’m proud of my history supporting abortion rights as a president of the National Organization for Women of Minnesota and am proud to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s list,” Blaha told MPR News in a written statement.

Wilson: “It’s really not a part of our race,” he told MPR News.

Evasion doesn't cut it. Yet evasion allowed Wilson to gain a tighter race. All citizens of Minnesota must be vigilant against issue evasion in politicians, what they say vs. who they are. As Blaha clearly pointed out, "An auditor pushing an anti-abortion agenda could disrupt local access to reproductive care, particularly for low-income Minnesotans." Evasion and honest candor seem opposed to one another.

What Jensen did not say and should have, the voucher issue is another pure loser position loved by too many Republican politicians. So watch out in the future for evasion of that issue by tarting it up as something - as anything - beyond allowing public education and public schools to be victimized by permitting any of the too-often inadequate funding to be highjacked into sectarian indoctrination. Even childless people pay taxes toward general public education as a public good, while sectarian indoctrination is short of that.

Last, there is wisdom in not allowing the abortion issue to "fizzle" after election day.

 

[UPDATED] A post from yesterday about an effort to reopen and intervene in the district court case holding much of Minnesota statutory anti-abortion legislation unconstitutional under the Minnesota Constitution got erroneously erased. Not a big problem.

 Intervention in the case would complicate things, but likely would allow the question of the litigation to linger and ultimately wend its way into a likely Minnesota Supreme Court decision of some kind. But is that good?

With DFL control of both houses of the legislature and the executive branch, why bother? For now the Gomez case stands as governing judicial law.

The legislature in reforming things should repeal the objectionable provisions, and then reform statutory law to expressly and unambiguoulsy conform with Gomez, as however might be deemed appropriate by majority rule. And then the legislature should put Constitutional inclusion of abortion and privacy rights, expressly worded, to a public vote on a referendum to amend.

Moot the intervention question. Or for now postpone it and set the table for mooting. Avoid unnecessary court churning. The courts could simply postpone the question as a scheduling discretionary power, until the legislature has had a reasonably sufficient time to act, next session, and in the absence of legislative action over such a fair timeframe, the courts always could revisit the case. 

That which churns less is best.

Deference to the new post-election legislature is the best way to balance the relative roles of the three branches of Minnesota government; such deference to the legislature not needing to be open-ended, but with sufficient judgment going into selecting a reasonable period of deferential time, so as to not suggest the legislature need be under unsuitable pressure to act or not.

Keep it neat. Keep it clean. Avoid what likely would be awkward and ultimately unneeded litigation.

In the interim, Gomez stands.

Judicial economy is best served, that way. Reopening a closed district court decision via tardy intervention without allowing legislative time to set policy in line with election results might be viewed as an improper judicial intrusion into due process balancing of three-branch function.

Look at how awfully the federal law was horsed up by Alito and confederates, and avoid any such mess at the State level, where the Alito opinion after all has said legislatures should speak and form State law.

The intervention motion seeks moving the judiciary to act prematurely. Presuming the legislature has a present majority to clarify and reform law regarding abortion, stay the judiciary by its own hand, and allow Minnesota's elected next session legislature to provide for State law given what the federal judiciary has most recently done on the question.

Hopefully the Attorney General on the pending intervention question shall argue for simple judicial forbearance until the newly elected legislature has had a sufficiently reasonable time to act in accordance with our most recent federal judicial decision-making, this being the first legislature elected subsequent to Alito and henchpersons entering their decision that abortion is an area in which state legislatures should act. 

JUST HOLD OFF. GIVE EACH BRANCH DUE TIME. IT CAN BE EXPECTED LEGISLATION ENSHRINING THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND BODY AUTONOMY, IF ENACTED, WILL BE CHALLENGED BY SOME FRINGE GROUP. THEREBY LEADING TO SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. IT CAN BE EXPECTED THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, IF PROPOSED, WOULD BE A DECISIVE STEP WHERE ALL THREE BRANCHES OF MINNESOTA'S GOVERNMENT COULD DEFER DECISION TO POPULAR WILL VIA POPULAR VOTING.

...........................................................

The best argument for such reasonable deference is the most fundamental. 

Look to the opening of the Minnesota Constitution:

Preamble

We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

ARTICLE I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. Object of government.

Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.

[...]

If that does not say let the ultimate sovereign, the people, decide the abortion question by voting on new, clear Constitutional wording inserting further delineation of rights, as the best and most prudent course of action in present circumstances; then what does it say? 

Moreover, it is noteworthy how the Preamble wording puts civil liberties ahead of religious liberties, where body autonomy of pregnant females, whatever their ages, is a preeminent - or should be - a preeminent civil right; apart from anyone's religious thoughts and/or biases. 

Some might not like that. But each has a vote. Our federal Supreme Court has left Minnesota no more sensible course of action. No court could credibly rule a Constitutional Amendment, duly enacted, "unconstitutional." Such a subornation of popular will would be tyranny. And it squares with Mr. Alito's stated opinion, and presumably would sit okay with Mr. Leonard Leo for the foreseeable future.

___________UPDATE___________

 For those unaware of intervention effort detail; see, e.g., Alpha News, here, here, here, and here. Also, here. (Be aware that Alpha News greatly slants its reporting.) 

Intervention is sought for the MOMS group of affiliated persons to be added to the case as a Defendant, and to be allowed to supplement the existing factual record built over time prior to the case being earlier decided, i.e., from a closure months before the intervention effort.

For the two court papers most informative, see,  the Judge's already issued July, 2022, Order and Memorandum, and the months-later post-election Nov. 14, 2022, Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene of the MOMS group (filed with an accompanying Motion, equally dated) . 

Judicial economy and Occam's razor cut the same way - postpone the MOMS. As noted previously, the MOMS effort could prove to be sound and fury signifying nothing, should the new legislature proceed as anticipated and promised:

Minnesota Democrats say they rode a wave of anger over the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade into complete control of state government, giving them a clear directive from voters to enshrine abortion protections into state law.

[...] "This is a pro-choice state. Period. Full stop," said Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who won re-election last week alongside DFL Gov. Tim Walz. "With a historic pro-choice trifecta in the Legislature, we aren't just on defense, we can proactively invest in policies and programs that improve people's care and improve people's lives."

With that mood prevailing it would be foolish not to provide sufficient time for specific legislative action to happen aimed to "proactively invest in policies and programs that improve people's care and improve people's lives," which most likely moots the MOMS efforts. They already delayed filing until after the election. Allowing more intervening reasonable time for legislative clarity will not prejudice them. They do not assert imminent actual irreversible harm. Rather, reasonable forbearance will shape their questioning for a new day and a new way, as imminent lawmaking events beginning next January quickly evolve to stem uncertainties. 

Urge the legislature to move first, with purpose. Given the threat of a costly but ultimately unnecessary reopening of the decided trial court case, readers are strongly urged to contact their legislators calling this intervention-and-reopening effort to their attention and urging them to take heed and act expeditiously. 

The Attorney General should accordingly argue to the district judge for reasonable deferential time for the legislature to define itself.

________FURTHER UPDATE_______

Having been asked whether I favor or disfavor reopening the case for a stronger adversarial presentation against Plaintiffs beyond the present record, there are aspects to the case that are strained, as would be the hypothetical situation were Catholic St. Thomas grad James Schultz to have been elected AG, and then the new DFL led legislature and executive were to generate and sign into law a fine, stout recognition of freedom and liberty of women to have autonomy and jurisdiction over their bodies to where by statute a protected right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy became law - while repealing any/all antiabortion legislation expressly rather than implicitly; under that hypothetical, would young, inexperienced Schultz vigorously defend such law as a duty of the office if the State were named in an action, that action judge shopped to a Catholic judge or other anti-abortionist with a robe and hammer, or would Schultz produce a lackluster defense of the statute to where it could be stricken for lack of a stout defense? 

No harm to judicial fairness would result if the present judge were to permit intervention of the St. Thomas MOMS as a Defendant and to permit new "allegedly expert" stuff to be trotted out and pasted in, on condition that intervenor agree to the case thereafter being taken under advisement for at least a full single legislative session, given a substantial likelihood the issues might be mooted during such session. 

If not legislatively mooted, then to proceed as the judicial discretion and predilection dictate, extended advisement being an option.

If Minnesota law has a requirement of an order and opinion having to be issued on some non-infinite time frame, that could be dealt with, again as a waiver precondition term affecting decision about permissive intervention. 

Building a supplemented record now, with movant for intervention having already prepared declarations, has some sense to it - now, but only with a forbearance understanding in place as a precondition for permissive intervention.

Then, new legislation or not, mooting of an expanded case or not, progression through the judiciary once "under advisement" is transacted into issuance of a final ruling of Constitutional law upon the buttressed record, appeal, etc. -- all that could follow in due course, depending on intervening actualities outside of the judicial branch of Minnesota's three branches.

In effect, go ahead with the record being augmented, sit on it, no harm to that; see what the other two branches of government do for a reasonable time; and then revisit it or dismiss it as mooted by intervening change of statutory law - as circumstances show proper.

If new law is formed, the St. Thomas Catholic faction now moving to change the existing case (which curiously was allowed to go to decision without a St. Thomas peep until it became clear that the election gave the other two branches to the DFL, and only then arising from the weeds to strike; i.e., only then pushing at the judicial branch from the clearly less popular political position - that highly questionable set of procedural macinations and decision making by those now pushing intervention - always remember that those same malcontents will be able and entitled to put together a Constitutional challenge to the new legislation, any new legislation, should they wish to, without a tangled district court situation hanging over to mess the clean question of Gomez being the Minnesota Constitutional precedent yet tersely written, and how new law might square with Gomez.

Gomez is not the most extensively reasoned and bolstered decision one might hope to weigh and consider as controlling judicial law, but it is the existing precedent.

BOTTOM LINE: The judiciary should show deference to the other two branches because an election, the sovereign people speaking most recently, suggests strong abortion availability rights is soundly majority supported in the voting populace.

Beyond that, it is greatly troublesome to me that the Catholic dance is to affirmatively and vigorously meddle in the lives of others, while nobody is telling any one of them to have or not have an abortion however they may choose. 

They are the unjustified intermeddlers in the peace, tranquility and permissive rights of others for, to me, wholly bogus and indefensible reasons of bias and mythology and Papal dogma and command. To me, not to any degree infallible cause to meddle in lives of others.

Of relevance, from back when the Alito stuff hit the fan, this and this.

 

November 16, MinnPost headlined: " Hennepin County suburbs, Minneapolis key in DFLer Ellison’s win over GOP’s Schultz for attorney general -- The dream of a suburban revolt against DFL Attorney General Keith Ellison from voters concerned about public safety failed to materialize." By Walker Orenstein | Staff Writer

 Was it the men, or the messages? According to MinnPost, there were comparisons to how Ellison votes stacked up to Wardlow in 2018, vs Ellison votes stacked up to Schultz, 2022, as well as speculation that Jensen's coat tails atop the ticket were a factor against Schultz.

Crabgrass, on the man/message question - Ellison by a substantial measure the better man. Put another way, James Schultz galled me. Ellison has always seemed sagacious and a gentleman in facing whatever Wardlow and advisers, Schutz and advisers threw against him. Not to say the Schultz message was in any way good. Just that it was a lesser factor, to Crabgrass, than one man against the other.

There is this basic truth, in a simple chart:

One Minnesota? Fact or fiction? Crabgrass believes Race and religion factored into what that chart says.

Would less fear mongering or even more sheriffs have tilted things? We only have what we had, as to the message. Simplistic vs. less so? Ditto.

The opinion at Crabgrass again is the Schultz people, and the candidate himself, were overly consistent in the message, and in who they were and how they thought throughout the ramp-up to voting day. The Crabgrass opinion is that the alleged cooperation between the Schultz campaign and outside money/ads is a credible allegation, in light of a totality of circumstances. Including of course, the one person singing for ad buys from campaign and outside PAC; but again, totality.

Breitbart publishes of a stated Republican intent to throw a ton of shit against the wall against Biden and family.

With the hope some of it sticks. Link.

Will this make them look better, or worse? Any doubt on the answer?

Separate email server, Benghazi, redux. Just different wording, varying events.

Enough to make a sane voter puke.

But they are who they are, and will do as they do.

Asa Hutchinson. You may ask, "Who?"

 You might find the answer unambiguous, but would the answer inspire?

First, Real Clear Politics:

#GOP Gov. @AsaHutchinson, who is weighing a 2024 run, says Trump's sway is fading after "disastrous" midterm races and calls for a "post-Trump future."

On the GA runoff, he says, "I hope that [Trump] is wise enough to stay out of that. So we have a chance of winning that race." pic.twitter.com/XRKlZ8a7Gi

— Firing Line with Margaret Hoover (@FiringLineShow) November 11, 2022

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) said on PBS's 'Firing Line with Margaret Hoover' that former President Donald Trump's influence has diminished and it is time for the Republican party to have a "post-Trump future."

"The election reinforced my thinking that if we're going to win, we have to have common-sense conservatives," Hutchinson said. "We have to have those that can appeal to independents, that can actually bring people together and that can win in November,  [...]"

[red highlight added] Okay, hat in the ring. Is he the type of man who can sufficiently distinguish himself from Trump and from DeSantis, or not? Can he offer that sizzling difference the nation yearns for?

.......................................................

Hutchinson has a Wikipedia page, disclosing:

 Hutchinson took office as [Arkansas] governor on January 13, 2015.

On November 16, 2015, Hutchinson said that he would block all Syrian refugees from entering the state in response to the November 2015 Paris attacks.^[23]

Under Hutchinson, Arkansas resumed executions in 2017 after having executed no one since 2005.^[24][25][26] In 2021, DNA testing on the murder weapon and a bloody shirt at the scene of the crime did not match Ledell Lee, who was convicted and executed for murder.^[27] Hutchinson defended Lee's execution, saying, "the DNA findings released today do not present any conclusive evidence to undermine [Lee's guilty verdict]."^[27]

As governor, Hutchinson implemented work requirements for Medicaid enrollees. As a result, by December 2018, almost 17,000 Arkansans had lost their Medicaid health insurance, with reapplication available in the new calendar year.^[28]

In February 2019, Hutchinson signed a bill into law that would criminalize abortion in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned.^[29] On March 9, 2021, he signed SB6, a near-total abortion bill, into law. [...] 

In 2015, Hutchinson signed into law legislation that would prohibit localities from extending civil rights protections to LGBT individuals.^[31] At the time, Arkansas was among states that allowed discrimination in the workplace, housing and business on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.^[32] In March 2021, Hutchinson signed into law legislation that would allow doctors to refuse non-emergency medical treatment to LGBT people based on moral objection.^[33] In April 2021, he vetoed a bill that would make it illegal for transgender minors to receive gender-affirming medication or surgery,^[34] calling it "a vast government overreach".^[35] The state legislature later overrode his veto.^[36]

In August 2021, Hutchinson signed bills into law that prohibited businesses and government facilities from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination for staff and customers to enter facilities.^[37] While Arkansas was experiencing a wave of COVID-19 cases, he also signed a bill into law that prohibited state and local officials from enacting mask mandates.^[38] He later said he regretted doing so.^[38] In December 2021, Hutchinson praised President Joe Biden's COVID policies and thanked Biden for his efforts to "get the vaccinations out" and "depoliticizing" the federal COVID response.^[39][40] In January 2022, Hutchinson encouraged large businesses to not comply with the Biden administration's vaccine requirements.^[41]

Hutchinson demanded that Republicans who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election and spread Trump's "Big Lie" about the election not be put in positions of leadership.^[42] He also accused Trump of dividing the party and said his election conspiracies were "recipe for disaster".^[43][44] On February 5, 2022, Hutchinson and U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski condemned the Republican National Committee's censure of Representatives Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney for their support of and participation on the House Select Committee tasked with investigating the January 6 United States Capitol attack.^[45] When asked in May 2022, Hutchinson said he supported Doug Mastriano in the 2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election;^[46] Mastriano denies the results of the 2020 election, and said if elected governor he might certify Pennsylvania's electoral votes only if the Republican presidential nominee wins.^[47]

Personal life

[...]  Hutchinson's son Asa Hutchinson III has been arrested multiple times for driving offenses, including arrests in 2019, 2018, and 2016 for DWI and an arrest for possession of a controlled substance at a music festival in 2016.^[49] [...]

Previous to Hutchinson being governor, Wikipedia describes his earlier career. Check it out unless you feel you've seen enough.

There is Trump. Aside from Trump, there is DeSantis.

As an alternative to either of those two, should Asa Hutchinson's candidacy be taken seriously, and where would it place the Republican party, if taken seriously?

Consider the question in the context, there is Mike Pence. Who we know better than we know Hutchinson.

Well, it is the NY Times posting, but from it, this extended quote, "A growing chorus of Republican officials, lawmakers and activists blame the former president for their failure to regain control of the Senate and for what will be a narrow margin in the House. The scope of the Republican losses has prompted some of his allies to publicly voice complaints they have long kept private about the former president’s ability to win the White House. For those who have been more vocal, their concerns have morphed into far more direct attacks as they try to seize what they see as a chance to move past Mr. Trump and embrace a new class of party leaders."

Link. What is amusing, paragraphs directly following the headline quote-

At an annual gathering of Republican governors in Orlando, donors and lobbyists mingled with governors past, present and future while weighing ways to wrest Mr. Trump from the party’s base. Their main complaint was not over policy or even style, but losses the party has taken since Mr. Trump won the White House in 2016.

Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a Republican often mentioned as a potential 2024 candidate, said she did not believe Mr. Trump offered “the best chance” for the party in 2024.

“If we narrow our focus there, then we’re not talking to every single American,” Ms. Noem said in an interview as she sat across a mahogany table from her political adviser, Corey Lewandowski, who served as campaign manager for an early portion of Mr. Trump’s 2016 bid. “Our job is not just to talk to people who love Trump or hate Trump. Our job is to talk to every single American.”

Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, a former Trump ally who spoke at the Jan. 6, 2021, rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol, put it more bluntly in a phone interview: “In 2020, there was no other option. In 2024 we will have candidates who are vastly superior and will do much, much better competing against the Democrat nominee than the loser Donald Trump has proven himself to be.”

Stuff there. Mo Brooks, did Trump help or hinder his reelection? Interested readers might want to look that up via web search.

Then, Republican Governors convening in Florida. 

Who does that bring to mind? Florida? A guy not quoted in the Times analysis.

Kristi Noem. Sorensen at Bluestem Prairie keeps an eye on South Dakota politics as well as on Minnesota, and she expands on that NYT reference to Noem. Sorensen's most recent post, 

The mahogany table of destiny; or, Noem in Florida, closer to Lewandowski than Trump 

No quote. Readers can simply follow the link and read Sorensen's insights and thougths. Well, one late in the item quote to whet the appetite.

Bluestem will be so cynical as to speculate that while we believe Governor Noem is entirely loyal to her husband, her connections with advisors are pure business and pragmatic. As for  her alignment with former President Trump, we South Dakotans should simply check our weathervanes and wind turbines to see which way the wind blows.

Noem is ambitious. Or that seems to be what Sorensen is suggesting. Ambition can move weathervanes, and with 2024 looming, what might Noem's ambitions entail?

A spot on the 2024 ticket? Top of that ticket? Noem?

Let Sorensen tell her story her way. Just remember Ron of Florida looms large, even this early. When people get to see more of who Ron has been and is, shifting can arise.

LAST: That last part of the headline, "... chance to move past Mr. Trump and embrace a new class of party leaders." Perhaps it should say "a new group" since same old - more of the same might be the appearance to many. Faces change. Habits, actions and embraced policy changes less. Cory Lewandowski in a way is a bridge to the present unchanging from the past. In the field of opportunity, it's plowing time again?

________UPDATE_______

As to Big Ron in Florida, he's pushed some real chickenshit stuff about former felon voting and it can, by intimidation, disenfranchise eligible voters. The Crabgrass hope is it will come around to bite him in the ass, for being an ass.

An interesting post for Republicans in Minnesota, Gary Gross, on the midterms, critical of some politicians' performance.

https://libertyprosperityblog.blogspot.com/2022/11/mitch-mcconnell-rick-scott-donald-trump.html

Being unfamiliar with what Gary is highlighting, his item speaks for itself, should readers be interested. A link. No quote. 

For this, going to Breitbart as a start seems appropriate. The post is offered as also having an appropriate wrap-up.

 Strib reports the same thing, per a Jill Covin Nov. 15 AP feed. HOOOWEVVVER, Breitbart headlines its homepage in fashion today. 

By screenshot, then  quote -

Quote -

"Despite the outcome of the Senate, we cannot lose hope—and we must all work hard for a gentleman and a great person by the name of Herschel Walker,” Trump continued. “He was an incredible athlete and he’ll be an even better senator. We elected a group of very talented America First leaders who will be stars in our party for many years to come. In the popular vote, another thing that’s not discussed, for the House, Republicans won 5 million more votes—the largest margin in many, many years—over the Democrats. Five million more votes.”

National Review. 

..................................................

A while ago, if recollection is correct, this item was linked to in posting long since scrolled into Crabgrass history. Hence it is given again as a link, as a wrap-up to this post. It is about a pair of kindred souls.

Read it or don't.

Let us reason together. [UPDATED]

For this we are to sacrifice patient-physician privacy, privacy in general, because an old document never mentions "privacy" (while neither mentioning "the unborn").

Wishing I had the link to the original, the image got saved, the link - no.

__________UPDATE__________ 

Today, after writing this post, I read Laura Yuen's writing in Strib about abortion from a wholly separate dimension - one unique to women, a stand-up exegesis of self examination and explanation by one intent to talk about the experience of her having an abortion. As a comedy routine.

"In my mind, it's somebody saying, 'Omigod, how could that possibly be funny or enjoyable?'" she told me. "Like, who could possibly want an hour about that?"

The twist is that her show is about much more than the abortion Leiby had three years ago. It's a meditation on birth control, sex education, women's health care, periods and the stigma against women who are childless by choice. But it's light, observational comedy, with lots of jokes and laughs, intended to humanize the experience of abortion.

And what a moment in history to broaden the conversation. Weeks after she debuted her off-Broadway show in April, a Supreme Court leak foretold its decision overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Now, fresh on the heels of midterm elections shaped by women voters defending their right to abortion, [Alison] Leiby (LIE-bee) is bringing her show to the Parkway Theater in Minneapolis on Friday. When she talks about her abortion, she recalls that day vividly, including the panic that she felt over what to wear. These are the mundane details about abortion that you don't hear in today's supercharged political environment.

[...] Here's more from my talk with Leiby, edited for length and clarity.

Q: What about abortion is funny?

A: Nothing and everything. When it's just this vague concept of a right or a freedom, and one often associated with trauma, it gets hard to joke about abortion. I think it's much more challenging than speaking from personal experience and being authentic: Well, here's how I felt, and then this happened. That just makes it a lot easier for people to get out of their own way with what they think about the topic, and just kind of listen and enjoy.

Q: It sounds like what you're trying to do is normalize this procedure.

A: Absolutely. We hear a lot of the narratives that get the most amplification when we talk about abortion, rightfully. You hear about victims of assault, incest and rape. We need abortion for all those things. But we also need abortion rights for people who find out they're pregnant and don't want to be pregnant — and that's the end of the story. We don't talk about those stories as much, and we need to include them in the fight for reproductive freedom.

Q: Abortion is often discussed as something that's deeply traumatizing for the woman. Did you feel that way after the procedure?

A: I did not at all, which is another reason I wanted to start working on the show. I had no trauma around the way I got pregnant, nor around my decision to have an abortion, nor around my access to an ability to have one. So for me, it was this completely non-emotional journey. But we're taught that it is this heavy, dark thing. And then the only real emotions I had around my abortion were that I felt bad that I didn't feel bad enough.

Q: Is it scary to talk about something so polarizing and vulnerable while on stage?

A: It's easy to talk to a group of people who came to see someone talking about abortion. What's much harder to talk about is not wanting to have kids. There's my own emotional journey with finally accepting that. I talk a lot about the experience of being child-free, and how every part of our culture is pressuring women to have families and give birth, as if that is how you bring value to society.

[...] If you go

"Oh God, A Show About Abortion," 8 p.m. Fri., Parkway Theater, 4814 Chicago Av. S., Mpls. Tickets: $25-$35 at theparkwaytheater.com.

This is a fairly extended excerpt of Yuen's item, to capture much of the mood and content of the presentation, yet where much more original content holds Yuen's post together. Readers are urged to follow the link and read the entire Yuen post. 

A hope is that with the presentation detail - place, time and ticket - Crabgrass readers who might have missed the Strib item may be clued to attend if learning of it here and intrigued.

FURTHER: Childlessness: With birthrates down, the making of a decision to go childless needs discussion. When made, the Crabgrass opinion is that it should be a decision free of any grumbling about paying school taxes for the children of others because the financing and governing of public education is not primarily for us as individuals but for our society collectively needing a steady, educated populace to make representative democracy work with continuity and without co-option by despotically inclined people or factions. 

Long sentence, but that's okay. At least the sentence states a hope.

Emmer in the news. [UPDATED]

Strib, beginning:

After divisive midterms, U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer tries for new leadership role

The Minnesotan is asking fellow Republicans to make him the next House majority whip.  

By Hunter Woodall Star Tribune

November 14, 2022 — 4:15pm

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer's ability to win a powerful House leadership role could rest on whether his fellow Republicans see the midterms as a success or a failure.

With Republicans favored to win back control of the chamber, the Minnesotan who led the House GOP's campaign arm is running this week to become the coveted majority whip. Yet that majority could come by a relatively small number of seats instead of the sizable wave of Republican wins the right had hoped to see.

"The bottom line is, we flipped the House and we're now going to be a check on Joe Biden and the Democrats' one-party rule," Emmer told reporters the day after the election.

His bid to become the third-highest ranking House Republican is the latest political move for the lawyer, former state legislator, governor candidate and radio talk show host from Delano. But as legislators made their way back to Capitol Hill on Monday, control of the House had yet to officially be called.

[...]

Emmer RNCC leadership moves were not responsible for any strong Dem election results this November. GOTV among the young was. 

And GOTV among the young can keep Dem prospects sound as long as the inner party does not fuck up by taking the young for granted as having no other option in two-party politics.

The inner party can show wisdom of moving its agenda toward what the people want. Progressive goals - and Sam Alito and henchpersons also - energized things where a return to cynicism is likely - because Dem inner party business as usual is likely. 

Flat learning curve is the worry, but if the Republicans run Trump again, the Dems can get by with a flat learning curve because running Trump again would show a flatter learning curve. 

DeSantis; more progressiveness is a necessity. And a showing of abortion attention remaining strong and not an "issue" to be trotted out for elections, then between elections to languish while the politicians play other politics of the moment.

Dumbness among Dem inner party types can boost the Republicans. Unlikely wisdom would have an opposite effect. Clinton mistakes still stand strong.

We wait. We see.

________UPDATE________

Emmer elected House Republican whip, per Strib

 Emmer's promotion follows his work chairing the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) for the last two cycles. Republicans cut into Democrats' majority during the 2020 election, even as Donald Trump lost the presidency. And last week's midterms gave them the chance to benefit from recent election trends and seeming political momentum.

Republicans came into Tuesday likely to hold the House by a relatively small number of seats. That reality loomed over Emmer's run for the whip job on Capitol Hill this week.

"A lot of people appreciate the fact that he stuck with the NRCC job for the last four years. There were expectations of [larger] numbers, but the fact of the matter is we're going to be in the majority," Minnesota GOP U.S. Rep. Brad Finstad, who supported Emmer for whip, said ahead of the vote. "We can armchair quarterback, should it have been 20 more seats, 30 more seats, whatever it may be, but he delivered."

While this won't be the 230- or 240-seat majority that Republicans wanted, GOP U.S. Rep. Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania, an Emmer ally, said Monday it was even more imperative that Emmer be chosen as the whip.

"With a thin majority, you're going to need a whip who has the nuance, who has the understanding of the difference between a deep-red district and a swing blue district, and there's no other candidate in this race besides Tom Emmer that brings that nuance and understanding to the table," Reschenthaler said.

Emmer and nuance being used together in the same sentence seems strange when thinking back to the Michel Bachmann days, and Emmer's unsuccessful run for Guv.

Final Strib paragraph - 

"I'm willing to work with Tom and Republicans on good policy for the country," Minnesota U.S. Rep. Angie Craig, a swing-district Democrat the House Republicans' campaign arm tried and failed to defeat, said Tuesday ahead of the GOP leadership elections. "But what I don't want to see, and I fear their caucus doing this, is two years of 'Let's just scream from the mountaintops and focus on investigations.'"

Is Craig specifically thinking of Emmer re that fear, or thinking of her knowledge of the Republican House caucus after having served time in DC?

BOTTOM LINE: Emmer is whip with that thin Republican majority, his job being to knock heads together and keep the caucus on message. We hope Craig is wrong about the message. Emmer has moved beyond any level of politics this Blog would have ever anticipated. Let's watch. With 2024 anticipation, Trump and DeSantis and whoever, each caucus member has free speech rights.

 

Do you trust this promise? Do you see the ambiguity and want to read it differently than what I'd hope it means? Steve Timmer does not expect a Jim Schultz quiet and firm retirement from politics. My guess, having built name recognition leads to something. Likely with a different support network of people, since a well-founded campaign violation complaint remains pending, and Schultz has talent enough for a learning curve, as well as for saying, "It was my first test of politics, and I relied upon seasoned professionals." Similar to Trump saying, "I relied on what the lawyers said, or what I believed what they were saying meant."

 For posterity, this screen capture pair - first, from the Schultz Facebook page, a capture from the promise/paragraph to the end of the post. Then, the full concession statement, naming several names - with the promise/paragraph at the end of the statement:

 

https://jimformnag.com/schultz-statement-on-the-election-results/

The operative words, with ambiguity, " . . . I’ll return to the private sector but will never stop fighting for the people of Minnesota . . ."

Does that mean for the immediate short term, back to office lawyering for hedge fund Varde, then keeping an aim and intent for more political adventure? Or does it mean lesson learned, politics is for others, I'm going to private practice again, but keeping a mood while staying in private practice? 

I'd surely like the latter, but suspect the former. 

Prior crabgrass posting voiced a guess: Schultz seeking a judgeship - some court, some level, perhaps starting at the top as in seeking the AG seat; shooting for a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court, where Alan Page's name recognition carried such an effort earlier. 

With Walz being governor meaning there will be no appointment into a vacancy, so instead think of his running against an incumbent soon enough that the AG run name recognition will still hold weight - at whatever judicial level strikes his fancy. 

Judicial elections being how they are.

Timmer

Steve's post, today, "The incredible lightness of being Jim Schultz," starting -

I wrote an email to a not-lawyer friend about the unsuccessful Republican candidate for attorney general, Jim Schultz. Since Minnesota has probably not – regrettably – heard the last of Schultz, I thought, on reflection, that my remarks were worth summarizing and repeating here. They are intended for our collective memory when Schultz resurfaces.

I’ve known many lawyers like Jim Schultz over the years: smarmy, smug, and supercilious, but at their root insecure and thin-skinned. Wan and apparently physically wasted, and with sweaty palms, they inhabit the warrens of Big Law as office lawyers everywhere. They are poor candidates for politics or public office.

I sound dismissive of the type. That’s because I am.

And ending -

 I understand that purring Republican sycophant Andy Brehm (shown above with Schultz) thinks that Jim Schultz would be a good candidate to run against Amy Klobuchar in two years. Seriously, I think this is a really bad idea for Republicans; Amy Klobuchar would tear off Jimmy’s limbs one by one and eat them. She made Brett Kavanaugh wail in anguish, and whatever you think of Brett Kavanaugh, he’s a much more formidable character than Jimmy.

I hope you will keep these thoughts in mind when Jim Schultz comes around again, or if you don’t, that Google will.

Steve wrote more, and the above title/link allows readers to enjoy the full thinking.

However, start and finish, this is a person who will resurface and want to touch politics again, so we should not let who Schultz is and has been escape notice from having too short a media/voter attention span.

Campaign violation complaint

Sahan Journal, Oct. 28 reporting, "Minnesota faith leaders denounce ‘race-baiting’ in GOP ads for attorney general campaign," with the subheadline, 

Interfaith leaders called on Republican attorney general candidate Jim Schultz to “rebuke and demand” that the ads be taken down. The Minnesota DFL has questioned whether Schultz worked with an independent political fund to place the ads.

This item is extremely well written and clear in everything it reports. Crabgrass readers are urged to read it in its entirety,  and to rotor over to the full online copy of the DFL's campaign violation filing. That filing copy includes exhibits, and is self explanatory. Either the CFB will show real teeth, prove wholly feckless; or land in between.

Others may know whether the CFB in investigatory mode can subpoena witnesses to testify under oath. If so, that earlier concession statement of Schultz does name several names, arguably jointly and severally liable with the candidate himself, who is ultimately responsible for actions of his campaign. Or there might be a consistent stonewall display of "non-coordination" which the CFB might conveniently buy into. 

Hopefully media coverage of the CFB handling of the complaint will not be sucked into a black hole of nothingness, as the campaigns and election this November recede into ever more distant past.

LAST: This blog, and Timmer this cycle have both been critical of Schultz and his Fearless Fosdick crime doesn't pay unimaginative and shallow campaign, as well as his appalling inexperience for the office. Crabgrass, moreover, has been disappointed that such a low-road campaign had any traction, much less making it a close race. With Schultz publishing that late polling even favored him over Ellison.

Here, that disappointment has been the motive of the AG campaign gaining more focus than any other contest this cycle. Wardlow's campaign last cycle against Ellison had a similar coverage motivation at Crabgrass. Each campaign trotted out 'police endorsed' as something special, Wardlow having Bob Kroll aboard last cycle to make it even more vexingly stupid.