The DA who brought the case, Kim Ogg, is an elected official. Top Google result for her name is this campaign page: https://www.kim-ogg.com/. Further down the list is a news article about threatening employees with performance reviews to appear at a food drive for her political benefit.
Had the judge not thrown out this case, she'd have another feather in her cap, another headline for the website: "Kim Ogg puts nepotistic, racist, embezzling doctor behind bars!" Doesn't need to be honest, just needs to sound good.
I am a Houstonian and absolutely hate Ogg. She bills herself as the "most progressive DA" and therefore prosecutes/does not prosecute certain things based on their political appearance. That is not what a DA should be doing, and she is the embodiment of all that is wrong with the "progressive" left these days.
Why is this anti-progressive? It sounds like he's being prosecuted because he gave vaccines to lighter-skinned people. Kim Ogg wouldn't be prosecuting him if he'd given them all to dark-skinned Black people.
The official statements of the medical associations in the article state: “It is difficult to understand any justification for charging any well-intentioned physician in this situation with a criminal offense.” As there is clearly no legal justification, the only justification in sight is progressive identity politics attacking a "white-adjacent" physician.
Could you explain a bit for those not familiar with US "progressive" stuff? What does she not prosecute and why, and why is that a problem? How left are we talking about?
Probably in this case OP is referring to identity politics and intersectionalism.
Basically, the more categories of historically marginalized people groups an individual belongs to, the more acceptable that person is, the more of a voice they’re allowed to have, and the more laudable it is to favor that person (and the more unacceptable it is to fail to favor that person regardless of the circumstances).
This doctor apparently “failed” to favor the right people. The progressive calculus around the case is all about “who”, and it intentionally excludes what, when, where, why, or how.
this is a straw man. where in the article / materials related to the case is race brought in to question? are we treating Indian-Americans as a majority group now? that's nonsense. You paint a picture of the "progressive calculus" that's quite obviously not informed by any actual exposure to it. I can only imagine the image you've adopted was gathered from outsider perspectives on what the word progressive means.
I never mentioned “race”, and neither did the DA in her court filings, as far as I know.
The problem she had with his decision was that he was “favoring” certain people in an unfair and illegal way — a conclusion that could only be reached by disregarding every question about the incident except “who”. That approach finds its origin in modern progressivism, where the only truth that matters is “who”.
Had the judge not thrown out this case, she'd have another feather in her cap, another headline for the website: "Kim Ogg puts nepotistic, racist, embezzling doctor behind bars!" Doesn't need to be honest, just needs to sound good.