Youtube would have to cut the biggest check in their history to whoever posted that.
(Bold and underline added)
I did not say kissing the unions ass wasn’t political. That’s your mis-interpretation (strawman?). Everything a mayor does is political. The successful executive branch leader has to be able to balance the concerns of a lot of partisan groups, appease the voters, entice new businesses, calm the fears of old businesses, and provide for the public’s safety, while trying to stay below the taxable threshold of voters. Generally-speaking, the voters will become more of a priority as election time grows nearer.
Just so you and I are clear about this, I’m in favor of investigations, and court cases, continuing to their legitimate conclusion. Ending investigations, and court cases, prematurely creates un-necessary suspicion, confusion, and doubts. As opposed to the usual necessary suspicion, confusion, and doubts. 
The judge’s ruling doesn’t prevent Terry Stops, which are still considered to be “Constitutional”. As I understand it, under the judge’s ruling, NYC is expected to create a committee (political?) to establish when stop and frisk (or whatever it’s new name will be) is allowed. I’m not sure who will be selecting the committee but I’m fairly certain there will be a lot of political (gasp!) pressure involved.
NYC has more than enough career criminals, fanatical jihadists, and looney toons to keeps the NYPD busy during whatever passes for normal times in NYC. With the current terrorist issues in Europe, and U.S. protesters calling for dead cops, De Blasio has his hands full trying to “keep the peace”. Unless De Blasio intends to request the governor call up the Nation Guard, or ask the OWS and SEIU protesters to patrol the streets, I’m thinking that De Blasio needs the NYPD a lot more than the NYPD needs De Blasio.
Misinterpretation, I guess. But you seem to think that continuing the appeal would not have been a political decision even if were only done to appease the PBA.
Except that one of the legitimate endings of a court case is dropping the appeal or even the original case when there’s no longer a dispute. Surely you don’t believe that every court case is appealed until such time as no higher court will accept the appeal. I don’t have any obligation to you or anyone else to keep fighting a case I don’t want to - if I sue my employer , I am free to agree to a settlement and drop the case. The only possible such obligation might be that of an elected official to his or her constituents. But the residents of NYC elected de Blasio knowing that he was going to drop the appeal so presumably those who bothered to vote wanted it dropped. Otherwise Lhota would have won.
“Eye” would have preferred that the appeal of this particular case had continued. Some of the involved parties wished to continue the case, including the NYPD. De Blasio made his own decision. Now De Blasio has to deal with the fallout of that decision.
The media had repeatedly reported that the NYPD were upset with De Blasio because De Blasio had warned/advised (your choice) the de Blasio children about how to deal with police stops. That’s a minor and recent issue. The NYPD/De Blasio feud goes back to at least 2013, and centers around stop and frisk issues. Officers didn’t turn their backs to De Blasio because he talked to his children.
No, the NYPD did not want to continue the case. The NYPD is a city agency headed by William Bratton, and he is the person who determines the official position of the agency (no doubt strongly influenced by his boss, at whose pleasure he serves) The ** PBA ** and one or two of the other unions did want to continue the case, but they were not the involved parties. If they were the involved parties, they wouldn’t have needed to file a motion to intervene ( which was denied).
No, they didn’t. They turned their backs for the same reason the PBA has hated pretty much every mayor going back to Lindsay including Giuliani and Bloomberg - because to a greater extent than any other municipal union, they see anything other than unconditional support and agreeing to their every demand as disrespect. That “don’t come to my funeral” pledge? It happened when Giuliani was mayor ,too.
Take what the Daily News says with a grain of salt. They have set themselves up as the anti-NYPD paper to oppose the Post as the pro-NYPD paper. I’m not sure which one was the chicken and which was the egg. I have heard from several of my inside NYPD sources that the meeting was not as it was portrayed and the disagreements were normal inter-union politics. Lynch’s term is up soon and some are jockeying for position to run against him. And of course you won’t get 100% agreement in any organization let alone one that has 40,000 members.
You are correct. There were several groups, who represent NYPD officers, who attempted to sign on to this case. Bratton was not one of them. Bratton serves at the pleasure of De Blasio. The NYPD officer representatives attempted to keep this case alive.
*Case 1:08-cv-01034-AT-HBP Document 465 Filed 07/30/14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAVID FLOYD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.
JAENEAN LIGON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
08 Civ. 1034 (AT)
12 Civ. 2274 (AT)
In the first motion, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., the Detectives’ Endowment Association, Inc., the NYPD Captains Endowment Association, and the Lieutenants Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., collectively, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association,1 separately, move to intervene as defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 for the purposes of (1) appealing three orders issued by the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin: (a) the first, enjoining the City of New York (the “City”) from conducting trespass stops outside of certain Bronx apartment buildings without reasonable suspicion of trespass in Ligon; (b) the second, finding the City liable for violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class in Floyd; and (c) the third, ordering remedies in Floyd and Ligon; (2) participating in the settlement of Floyd and Ligon; and (3) participating in the remedial phase of the litigation. Because their motions raise identical issues, the Court addresses them together, referring to all of the proposed intervenors collectively as the “Unions” and noting variations only where relevant. The Floyd and Ligon plaintiffs are collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs.” Plaintiffs and the City oppose the Unions’ intervention*.
Loach, have you gotten a sense of the prevailing feelings among the members of Lynch’s union? Are they largely supportive of Lynch? IOW, do you have a sense of whether Lynch will get re-elected by the members, or kicked to the curb?