I posted this as a question in an earlier diary, but I think it is worth exploring in a short diary and poll as well.
That is- what of Elliot Spitzer, hero to the progressive masses? He went to court to get an injunction against the NYC transit workers, and then when they struck in defiance of that injunction, he went back to court and sought (and got) huge fines against the union (and it's members).
Now, based on the responses I got elsewhere, it seems some will simply say that Spitzer has no choice- that as state AG, he has to enforce the laws, whether he agrees with them or not.
But that is simply not true. Prosecutors (and AG's) have a higher duty than strict attorney-client. They have enormous discretion in how (and whether) to enforce the law. Yes, ultimately they are bound by the law, but they have plenty of wiggle room.
That's why we elect them, rather than just hiring a law firm.
Spitzer could have held off on going to court for fines. He had the discretion to announce that he didn't want to intrude on the bargaining at this time, and simply waited.
Could Pataki, or the legislature, then over ruled him and ordered him into court? Frankly, I don't think so. But, even if there is such a mechanism, that wouldn't change the fact that Spitzer could have taken a position against fining the union membership.
But he didn't.
Why? Because in my opinion, he looked at the political calculus, and saw no upside in holding off. Right now, he is below the radar on the strike, many probably don't realize that he was even involved. If he had declined to go right into court immediately, he would have been part of the screaming headlines in the New York tabloids today, and he wanted no part of that.
And, what down side to him- no one is even criticizing him. His name isn't even mentioned.
Well, I am mentioning him.