The San Francisco Chronicle published my op-ed on Newsom's abuse of the reprieve power to subvert the law and the will of the voters.
The Chron has a very tight length limit, so some good stuff went on the
cutting room floor. That's the answer in advance to "Why didn't you say
... ?"
The analogy to Trump's emergency declaration seems quite poor. There is a colorable argument that the declaration exceed both the president's statutory and constitutional powers. There is no such argument with regards to Newsom's action, he clearly has the authority to do what he did, at least with regard to the reprieves.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I stand by the analogy. A "colorable" argument is not a strong one. The better criticism of Trump's declaration is that it is a misuse of a broad power given to him for other purposes.
That is precisely what Newsom did. Even the press, which leans heavily the other way, questioned him strongly about it. He became quite arrogant in response, asserting that he had the "right" to do what he did. "Right" is the wrong word. He had the power, but abusing it in this way is not right.
Decencyevolves: I quout one Kent Scheidegger:
"Reprieves, the governor does have the power to do that. That doesn't make it the right thing to do," Scheidegger said. "At this time I don't see a legal challenge to the reprieve." However, he said prohibiting corrections officials from preparing to carry out executions "is patently illegal" under the 2016 ballot measure.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/news/crime/amp/California-governor-places-moratorium-on-13683975.php
Glad to see we agree on something, DE.
Quotation isn’t agreement, but I guess it’s safe to assume that a legal challenge to the Governor’s exercise of his reprieve power isn’t likely to be filed by CJLF.
In the context of a discussion of the distinction between power and right, a bare quote making that point would seem to connote agreement, but if you didn't mean it that way, okay.