Tuesday, August 19, 2014
So Perry may have a point, but he also has a problem. Prosecutors have wide, almost unlimited, latitude to decide which cases to bring. The reason is obvious: there is simply no way that the government could prosecute every violation of law it sees. Think about tax evasion, marijuana use, speeding, jay-walking—we’d live in a police state if the government went after every one of these cases. (Indeed, virtually all plea bargaining, which is an ubiquitous practice, amounts to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.) As a result, courts give prosecutors virtual carte blanche to bring some cases and ignore others. But, once they do bring them, courts respond to the argument that “everyone does it” more or less the same way that your mother did. It’s no excuse. So if Perry’s behavior fits within the technical definition of the two statutes under which he’s charged, which it well might, he’s probably out of luck.
This is lame. I thought maybe Jeffrey had something, but no. Has he always been this political?
If prosecutorial discretion includes the power to prosecute every veto you don't like, it swallows up the constitutional value of checks and balances. I doubt that is possible, even in Texas. It might have to get to the Texas Supreme Court if the Democrats want to push it that far. It's a dumb indictment.