Earlier, by Michelle Malkin: Radical Spawn Chesa Boudin—America's Most Toxic DA Candidate

Last November Chesa Boudin was elected District Attorney for San Francisco. Who he? He a red-diaper baby, son of communist terrorists Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert.

That's not idle abuse I'm offering there: Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert were both arrested, tried, and convicted for the murders of two police officers and a security guard in 1981, when Chesa was one year old. Gilbert is still in jail; Kathy Boudin was let out on parole in 2003.

Chesa was raised by two other crazy leftists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn avoided lengthy prison sentences and settled to comfortable well-paid careers in, of course, the academy.

None of that is Chesa Boudin's fault, but it might as well be: He's a crazy radical himself. CBS San Francisco tells us that he, quote,

ran a progressive campaign that included working to end mass incarcerations and racial disparities in the criminal justice system. [New San Francisco District Attorney Fires Multiple Prosecutors, January 10, 2020]

If you have followed my commentary on the stupid, innumerate, and pernicious Disparate Impact doctrine, you'll have heard me argue that those racial disparities in the criminal justice system are a straightforward consequence of the fact that some races are way more criminal than others. And in the matter of mass incarceration, you may also have heard me argue that we're not putting enough black men in prison.

Chesa Boudin begs to differ. As soon as he took office on January 8th he set about fulfilling his campaign promises. What he did was, he fired six of the D.A. office's prosecutors, in the homicide, felony and gang units. This is not usual behavior in an incoming D.A. People get moved around, sometimes demoted, but not often just fired.

I suppose Chesa Boudin's actions are not surprising. What did surprise me, in fact shocked me, was that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor sent him a gushing video of congratulation when he took office, praising his  "strength of character and moral composure" and calling him, quote, "a great beacon to many." (It's not on YouTube that I know of, but the text of the message is here.)

I understand, of course, that the notion that U.S. Supreme Court justices dwell in a lofty realm of jurisprudential philosophizing high above the grubby politicking of the other two branches, that this notion is just a polite fiction; but aren't the justices supposed to pretend?