James Cueva - Politics Blog

I find it curious that Florida Republican'ts soultion to affordability is to gut local government budgets with the proposed elimination of property taxes instead of addressing out of control property insurance rates. I guess that's to be expected when their campaigns are bankrolled by the insurance lobby.

When will Florida Republicans wake up and smell the coffee? Florida is being fleeced by this corrupt governor.

The price of gas on January 21, 2025. Donald Trump and all his supporters are on notice. Let’s see what the price of gas does in the next 12 months.

As disappointing a result as Tuesday night and Wednesday morning were, I find some comfort in the words of Vice President Kamala Harris. We must, as she said, keep fighting. We must fight for this country. We must fight for the rule of law. We must fight for the hard fought and won civil liberties that were born out of the civil rights movement. We must fight in the courts. We must fight in the media. We must fight on the streets, in peaceful demonstrations, if that's where the fight takes us, but in the words of Winston Churchill, we must NEVER SURRENDER.
As bad as the results last night were, I predict there will be another BLUE WAVE in 2026 when people are reminded of how incompetent this narcissistic egomaniac is who will be back the in the White House. His economic policies will NOT result in prosperity for the middle class. His foreign policy will be a DISASTER, but through it all we must continue to FIGHT for what we believe in. We must FIGHT for the middle class. We must FIGHT for our civil liberties and for our civil rights. We need to FIGHT against those who seek to suppress voter registration, voter turnout, and the right to vote itself. I urge each and every one of you to recommit yourselves to the FIGHT and the take the FIGHT to the POTUS and to the corrupt and incompetent Senators from Florida. Take the FIGHT to the fascist governor of Florida who fears books and education, free speech and the free exchange of ideas, who fears the freedom of others to follow THEIR RELIGION, even if its is not HIS view of religion. Take the FIGHT to the undemocratic super majority in the Florida legislature. FIGHT against those who would undermine public education, both from the dias of the school board and from the audience well. Who will join me in the FIGHT for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY today, tomorrow and always!?!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/editorial-americans-voted-for-trump-here-s-what-they-chose-and-the-hope-for-all-those-who-didn-t/ar-AA1tDI7U?ocid=socialshare&pc=U531&cvid=f61e6ed06aa3484889a711df0313e437&ei=14

Editorial: Americans voted for Trump. Here's what they chose — and the hope for all those who didn't Voters picked a leader who embraced authoritarianism, division and dehumanization. Those who chose Kamala Harris, including in California, aren't without recourse.

You might be a 🫏 if you are trying to gaslight American voters about your political opponent being responsible for $4.00 eggs when the sign behind you clearly indicates the price of a dozen eggs is $2.99 . . .
Don't fall for the BS. Vote for Kamala Harris for President.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/column-american-economists-and-consumers-didn-t-understand-inflation-during-its-recent-surge-they-still-don-t/ar-AA1rjjlV?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=cf6995db123e43f79ba79a7d6d895b6f&ei=62

You have to ask yourself, why is it that one of this country's two major political parties (the only two viable parties we've got) seems hell-bent on voter suppression and undermining trust in our elections? Who stands to benefit from this? What is motivating these people to suppress voter turnout? Why are they chasing election fraud ghosts that aren't there?

Attempts to purge voter rolls increase as election nears | CNN Politics Attempts by conservatives to purge state voter rolls ahead of the November election, including from Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee, are ramping up, prompting concern from the Justice Department that those efforts might violate federal rules governing how states can m...

This sorry excuse for a governor's tactics to intimidate the free will of Floridians and suppress the vote is pathetic. Almost as pathetic as Agent Orange.

Moderate Republicans (if any still exist) must cure the cancer of extremist politicians who are out of touch with most Americans like this clown, like JD Vance, like Ted Cruz and the rest of the MAGA crowd.

Ron DeSantis Goes Full Big Brother on Abortion Rights Supporters Politics / DeSantis is fighting hard to block a ballot initiative codifying abortion rights in Florida—so hard he’s sent police to question people who signed a petition supporting the measure. Elie Mystal Florida Governor and national embarrassment Ron DeSantis has found a new and terrifying way...

***REPOST***

Here comes the fascist governor with his goon squad legislature infringing on civil liberties yet again.
The last time I checked, police did not need protecting from civilian oversight. The whole reason for civilian oversight of police is to prevent incidents like the McDuffie incident in Miami, where an innocent black man and USMC veteran was ruthlessly beaten to death by white cops in 1980. As if the senseless beating wasn't bad enough, these rogue police officers then tried to cover up their misdeeds and make it look like they were defending themselves. What's to stop this from happening again once civilian oversight boards are banned? In a free society, who does this benefit? It surely does not benefit the citizen.
This absurd war on "woke" needs to stop. I don't think anyone in Florida wants to live in a fascist police state, but that's exactly where we're headed with this fascist governor and his goon squad legislature. I pray the courts rule this garbage unconstitutional, but with the current corrupt, incompetent, activist judges on the FL Supreme Court I worry that our civil liberties will continue to be eroded, all in the name of public safety.
Me? I'm with Ben Franklin who is credited with saying "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I'm still waiting for Miami's finest to find the crooks who stole my bike from the park behind my house. When they solve that cold crime, maybe I'll give them some credit. Otherwise, I'm fine protecting myself.
The rantings expressed here are my own opinions. If you don't like my opinions, you can kiss my @$$ and go post somewhere else. BTW the last line is a nod to musician David Alan Coe who famously sang "If that ain't country, I'll kiss your . . ."

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msn.com%2Fen-us%2Fnews%2Fcrime%2Fflorida-gov-desantis-signs-bill-to-protect-law-enforcement-officers-throughout-the-state%2Far-BB1lwmqk%3Focid%3Dmsedgntp%26pc%3DU531%26cvid%3D1461889d8c3143f894dc826dff6a13e9%26ei%3D27%26fbclid%3DIwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0E6jb_H6e2_gKzosCoWvZ6SYNXxQQ_P9wwHP3LIn9I2LG3g3NmBs1fQ0I_aem_p-eIBKZa2YywsU2-7Ga_yQ&h=AT2PRwkOBaGVbBv0JW4EGzQTgKjqsAQnNFu5hrrzRxM8hZZTS8A7mhXcy1qbx9CVDCpRTcvz2HoYBbA6D_kn7sbScEq4Hju3aIYRySdXmS7YwA3CJm5wNaf6RF1RuVDRwl0z34W_xuhyJEAG8kYa&__tn__=%2CmH-R&c[0]=AT3eVJXsdnnsKbbKPuLPkcCA0LuCwHkZV4oRbCpoTX3pfUnY51r9YMdTSjS2vttDkgy1C1c4yS_Q4Z26OTGQF8MdK5N6K9dt_wlAoiqNICdXUQMbJJgoBsDM_Ew184Dnktfm1NN0UJfwrFbcYt49aAhBUrNT_UK3r5vNYiKqPkIi4kzxnQRf3cpfsKvaA-xI1CN4Mr_GjLqJotP5AQL4fv1BW7FPNVyF7rkO

Florida Gov. DeSantis Signs Bill To Protect Law Enforcement Officers Throughout The State Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed laws Friday that make it harder for anyone to harass law enforcement officials while they are performing their duties and that forbid communities from utilizing political organizations like Civilian Oversight Boards to further anti-police sentiment. “I am proud...

Good read on the ongoing attacks against DEI...

DeSantis, extremist Republicans hammering, wounding DEI • Florida Phoenix On June 2, a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the Fearless Fund — a Black-woman owned venture capital firm in Atlanta — violated the 1866 Civil Rights Act by awarding monetary grants to qualified Black women. In a mind-blowing ruling, two of the...

My colleague and fellow Florida attorney George J. Felos eloquently sets forth why the recent Florida Supreme Court decision overturning 50 years of state court precedent and directly ignoring the will of Florida voters and the plain language of the Florida Constitution is a political hack job that undermines the independence and trust we place in the judiciary. He also comments on the politicization of the judicial branch from the US Supreme Court down to state courts, which have seen reversals of precedent from one year to the next, just because of the outcome of a particular election. I hope you enjoy his editorial opinion article. I will say I agree 100% with the concerns he raises about judicial independence, stare decisis and the erosion of public trust in the judiciary due to the politicization of a branch of government that should be beyond the influence of politics, but increasingly - and sadly too often - is not.

The Florida Supreme Court – Abortion & Rule of Law

by George J. Felos, J. D.

Having argued two landmark privacy cases before the Florida Supreme Court, I’m saddened to see the court hold that a woman’s ability to have an abortion is no longer protected under the Florida Constitution’s privacy clause. As a lover of the law and the rule of law, the sadness is in watching our Supreme Court devolve into a third political branch of government, where decisions appear to be based upon the personal beliefs and political agendas of the justices and governor who appoints them.

The rule of law and respect for the law depend, at a minimum, upon the public perceiving that judicial determinations are based upon underlying legal principles rather than a court’s current personnel. We need not look far to see damage to the courts when judges act upon personal belief and political persuasion.

Former President Trump announced while campaigning that he would appoint judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, signed a published declaration that life began at fertilization and abortion is “barbaric.” Was there any real question how she would vote once given the opportunity to reverse Roe? And does anyone really wonder why the US Supreme Court is at an all-time low in public confidence and respect, now viewed more as apolitical body than a repository of jurisprudence?

Look at the judicial chaos in North Carolina and Wisconsin. The political affiliations and preferences of the judicial candidates are not only known, but actively espoused. In 2022 the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering violated the state constitution, and one year later it ruled it did not. What happened? An intervening election changed the court’s composition from Democrat to Republican. The Wisconsin Supreme Court just undid its prior redistricting decisions. Why? An intervening judicial election where the winning candidate expressed her views against partisan gerrymandering. Where is the rule of law when the law changes on a dime due to the court’s composition? Why should the public have any confidence that courts are really arbiters of facts and interpreters (not makers) of the law?

Our current governor appointed supreme court justices with reported anti-abortion credentials, leading pundits to predict that the court would deliver on that political agenda. Unfortunately, the Florida Supreme Court did little to dispel that notion. Not only is its opinion legally unpersuasive, but worse, the justices use their opinions to trumpet their pro-life/anti-abortion beliefs.

As to the first, in 1980 Florida voters adopted a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private lives. For decades our Florida courts have ruled that this “right-to-privacy” pertains to decisions regarding abortion. But now, the majority goes to great pains, via a lengthy historical analysis, to justify their conclusion that Floridians were clueless in 1980 that the amendment pertained to abortion. The problem with judges posing as historians is that this pursuit is rife for cherry-picking the historical record to justify a result. If one reads the dissenting opinion’s historical analysis, the majority’s exercise appears to do just that.

Beyond its foray into history, the weakness in the majority’s opinion is betrayed by its use of contorted logic. According to the majority, abortion is not a matter associated with the right to privacy because an abortion, as a “medical intervention,” requires “both the presence and intrusion of others.” According to the court’s logic, the presence of third parties renders a decision to end a pregnancy no longer a “private” matter. Perhaps a woman can retain her right of privacy by choosing to perform her own abortion?

This fanciful logic and dicta are dangerous. I am particularly concerned, having decades before argued before the Florida Supreme Court In Re: Browning––establishing the right to remove or have withdrawn unwanted medical treatment as constitutionally protected under the privacy clause. I later argued Bush v. Schiavo, which reaffirmed Browning and rebuffed the legislature’s and governor’s intrusion into Terri Schiavo’s constitutional right of privacy to terminate artificial feeding.

Although the current decision states it is limited to abortion, the same historical analysis and notions of privacy could easily be applied to the right to govern your own medical treatment. Implementing medical-treatment decisions––especially the withdrawal of a medical apparatus––necessarily involve health-care professionals. Utilizing this court’s analysis, they are no longer “private” and no longer constitutionally protected.

More troubling is this court’s decision to infuse its proceedings with expressions of individual justices’ personal beliefs. At oral argument, Chief Justice Muñiz, referring to the unborn, proclaimed to counsel:

“You are asking us to essentially take a whole class of human beings and put them outside of the protection of the law essentially in the sense if the legislature wants to protect those human beings they are precluded by the Constitution of Florida from doing that.”

(The Chief Justice repeated this sentiment in his concurring opinion to place the proposed abortion constitutional amendment on the ballot.)

What you call the prenatal development of a human offspring––whether fetus, unborn child or “human being”––depends on your very personal view of religion, morals, philosophy, and science. We expect that one using the phrase “human being” is inclined to impart legal rights to the unborn rather than one using the phrase “unviable fetus.” The Chief Justice could easily have used the neutral term “unborn.” His choice of words appears to serve no other purpose than to broadcast his own personal beliefs and opinions. The Chief Justice is, as we all are, entitled to his very personal views. But needlessly declaring them in these proceedings imparts the impression that his decision-making is being driven by those beliefs.

More disturbing is Justice Grosshans’ dissenting opinion in the abortion-ballot case, to which Justice Sasso concurs. In it, the banner of “personhood” for the unborn is raised and its clarion call issued. To Justice Grosshans, the proposed ballot amendment is “misleading” because it fails to inform the public that it “would likely impact” the constitutional provision giving “all natural persons . . . the right to enjoy and defend life” (Art. I, Sec. 2). These justices strained at great length to conclude that the public had no idea the privacy amendment impacted abortion; yet now, they likely conclude the citizenry somehow knew that Section 2 of the declaration of rights, when last adopted, included personhood for the unborn!

“Personhood”is the flag under which the pro-life/anti-abortion political movement is marching. While Justices Grosshans and Sasso may agree with this movement, using their judicial positions to espouse that movement damages this court and the rule of law. Who reasonably believes that they will bring an open and dispassionate mind to future cases regarding abortion? If we are to have a Supreme Court driven by personal and political beliefs, let’s elect our justices so we can at least determine where they stand on the issues.

Of course, our Supreme Court changes course based upon the governor appointing justices. A governor is entitled to select justices according to judicial philosophy. But the most fundamental duty of a justice is to maintain the integrity of the court as an independent body deserving the respect of the public. Radical and seemingly political judicial results, infused with personal ideologies, appear pre-determined. Such decisions destroy public confidence in the court, the law, and government, thereby damaging society as a whole. Our country is in danger as societal faith in all our institutions is at an all-time low. Sadly, our Florida Supreme Court only exacerbates this peril.

© George J. Felos, 2024

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Activist Judges Overturn Precedents; Ignore the Will of Voters in Florida
PRESS CONTACT: [email protected]

Kendall, FL - Earlier today a majority of the Florida Supreme Court, overwhelmingly stacked with neo-conservative judicial appointees, overturned decades of precedent and ignored the will of Florida voters who decades ago enshrined a constitutional right of privacy into the Florida Constitution, primarily as a bulwark against anti-abortionist legislation. Seemingly emboldened by their neo-conservative brethren on the US Supreme Court, and not to be outdone in their conservative zealotry, the Florida Supremes likewise brushed aside decades of binding legal precedents and negated the will of the people. Again. Only one Justice, the Honorable Jorge LaBarga, dissented.

Unlike the US Constitution, which does not have an express privacy clause, the Florida Constitution states that Floridians have "the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into . . . private life.” Art. I, - 2 - § 23, Fla. Const. This language was added to the Florida Constitution in 1980. I can't imagine a greater intrusion into a woman's private life than a state government dictating what a woman can and cannot do with her body. Until now, all of the precedents agreed. The language contained in Paragraph 23 was placed in the Constitution by Florida voters precisely because they wanted to protect women from anti-abortion legislation. The Florida Supreme Court had faced this issue time and time again, and in each case the Court had upheld a woman's right to choose to end an unwanted pregnancy. That is until now.

There can be no mistake about this decision, it is judicial activism of the worse kind, the kind that deprives citizens of their most basic human rights. The kind of judicial activism that imposes the religious beliefs of a few against those of a majority of citizens and infringes on the religious beliefs of those who believe that human life begins with the first breath. It is the kind of judicial activism that offends the long-standing constitutional principle of separation of church and state. The Florida Supreme Court's decision in the Planned Parenthood case is a miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, the fight for our rights doesn't end with the Dobbs or Planned Parenthood decisions, they are only the beginning of a long and arduous fight to preserve those freedoms gained by the civil rights movement of the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. We must continue to fight against those neo-conservative voices who would roll back the clock on our civil rights. We must push back on those who seek to impose a theocracy where their beliefs, and their particular religious beliefs are supported by the weight of the law.

Fortunately, this very issue will be on the ballot in November. Fortunately, Florida voters will have the opportunity to send a message to the Florida Supreme Court and the neo-conservative super-majority in Tallahassee that they got it dead wrong. Fortunately, every single one of these Judges has to be re-elected (retained) by THE PEOPLE every six years. The single most powerful instrument of democracy, the ballot, has the ability to undo this infringement of a woman's right to reproductive freedom. That same ballot has the power to remove every single judge who attached his or her name to this horrendous opinion. Their names are: Jamie Grosshans (who wrote the opinion), Carlos Muniz, Charles Canady, John Couriel, Renatha Francis and Merideth Sasso. Write those names down. Remember those names. Vote every single one of them off of the Supreme Court when their names come up on the ballot for retention.

In November we have the opportunity to enshrine women's reproductive freedom into the Florida Constitution in a way that not even the most activist neo-con judges can overturn, but it will only happen if we unite and get out the vote. It will only happen if everyone who is eligible to vote exercises their sacred right to vote. It will only happen if we register more like-minded voters and get them to the polls in November. The assault on our civil liberties will only end when the super-majority in Tallahassee is broken and the neo-conservatives who have hijacked the GOP and our State government are soundly defeated. Make no mistake, it will take ALL OF US to prevail in this fight, but prevail we must. Failure is not an option. Nothing less than our freedom and our way of life is at stake. Vote like your life depends on it.

# # #