News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[Andrew C]

It wasn’t really his call. Letting the seats remain vacant for years wasn‘t a viable answer either. The blame falls on those who refused to vote for judges nominated even if they were well qualified and not extreme.

LOL stop...

 

[Chi84]

LOL stop...

I wouldn’t place the blame squarely on either party, but the widespread belief that judges are nothing more than political creatures is fairly recent.

I’m not denying that judges have always been chosen to align with the political leanings of the person appointing them or the political party supporting them for election. (And there have always been political hacks - mostly on a more local level.)

But the media reporting that DeSantis has scored a “huge victory” based on nothing more than a recusal is troubling. I don’t believe most judges at the federal level should be so lightly accused of political bias.

 

[flynnibus]

As much as I don't like it, that is how the constitution set up the government. The AG works for the President, and the president is the chief law enforcer of the land. There is no provision in law for the AG to overrule the president, and laws that have been passed have not fared well in the courts.

The way the framers set it up, the remedy for lawbreaking from a President is impeachment, then prosecution once removed from office. But that hasn't worked out too well...

You can’t impeach people that work downstream of the president- and we have laws on government employees… including those appointed by the president.

Those laws had not been so blatantly ignored until we had an exec that basically thumbed his nose at anyone who didn’t treat him as king

 

[tissandtully]

I could see a liberal judge rule in favor of Disney for political reasons but Conservative Judges follow the US Constitution and rule of law

Hilarious

 

[Andrew C]

But the media reporting that DeSantis has scored a “huge victory” based on nothing more than a recusal

I think this is a bit of an overreaction by the media (that is what they do), and is a representation of the divisiveness that exists in politics today. Of course, just my opinion.

 

[Chi84]

I think this is a bit of an overreaction, and is a representation of the divisiveness that exists in politics today. Of course, just my opinion.

I absolutely agree it’s an overreaction. The media thrives on not only reporting the divisiveness but adding to it. I’m sick of it.

 

[mkt]

Conservative Judges follow the US Constitution and rule of law

Allow me to present to you Judge Aileen Cannon

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Who hears the case matters but when it comes to judges nothing is a slam dunk, the 9th circuit is notorious for being liberal but their rulings are approximately 2/3 liberal and 1/3 conservative, likewise the 5th circuit is notorious for being conservative but their rulings are approximately 2/3 conservative and 1/3 liberal. Even the current, very conservative, Supreme Court only rules with conservatives 62% of the time.

Ideology matters but judges are still better at being neutral than most.

 

[tissandtully]

Allow me to present to you Judge Aileen Cannon

View attachment 720818

Honestly seascape lost a lot of favor from me for that comment, not sure what liberal judges wouldn't rule with the constitution, and even that doesn't make much sense, because it's their job to interpret the constitution... so.. it was a weird political comment

 

[MagicRat]

The governor may have gotten more than he wished for, true he got the democrat out of the judge seat but the new guy is a Trump appointed judge. What’s more biased a judge who is appointed from a different party or a judge who was appointed by your competition?

 

[GoofGoof]

Who hears the case matters but when it comes to judges nothing is a slam dunk, the 9th circuit is notorious for being liberal but their rulings are approximately 2/3 liberal and 1/3 conservative, likewise the 5th circuit is notorious for being conservative but their rulings are approximately 2/3 conservative and 1/3 liberal. Even the current, very conservative, Supreme Court only rules with conservatives 62% of the time.

Ideology matters but judges are still better at being neutral than most.

Some of those judges are not recent appointees. The nature of this case is different too. It’s a political dispute based on political speech. Looking at an overall score card is helpful but looking at the nature of the individual cases is needed too. That is why I think this judge is very unlikely to side with Disney on the free speech counts. it was also very likely Walker would have. It goes both ways. There is a better chance this judge does side with them on the contract issue.

 

[GoofGoof]

I wouldn’t place the blame squarely on either party, but the widespread belief that judges are nothing more than political creatures is fairly recent.

I’m not denying that judges have always been chosen to align with the political leanings of the person appointing them or the political party supporting them for election. (And there have always been political hacks - mostly on a more local level.)

But the media reporting that DeSantis has scored a “huge victory” based on nothing more than a recusal is troubling. I don’t believe most judges at the federal level should be so lightly accused of political bias.

I actually think the 60 vote threshold should be codified into law to stop this nonsense. It is destroying the integrity of the courts.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I actually think the 60 vote threshold should be codified into law to stop this nonsense. It is destroying the integrity of the courts.

In my opinion that ship has sailed and it is either headed for a unknown sandbar or freely out in the deep water.

 

[JoeCamel]

I actually think the 60 vote threshold should be codified into law to stop this nonsense. It is destroying the integrity of the courts.

But would any get done when most blindly vote party lines or use rules to block consideration at x all?

 

[GoofGoof]

But would any get done when most blindly vote party lines or use rules to block consideration at x all?

It would be up to the voters to be honest. We should hold our Senators accountable for doing their job and that includes approving Federal judges. One possible solution is to have an independent body vet the candidates and approve 3 options for each seat and require the Senate to approve one.

In my opinion that ship has sailed and it is either headed for a unknown sandbar or freely out in the deep water.

Yeah it has for the reason above. The people don’t want it because they want to game the system whenever it’s in their favor.

 

[JohnD]

The reason I disagree with you is that Conservative Judges will not decide cases based on Disney being a so called woke company. This case is simple. DeSantis could have won if he just kept the first bill and abolished the RCID. However, that would have been a disaster politically for him. So he decided to punish Disney, void the DA and appoint a new board over the newly created CFTOD. Disney will win this case regardless of whi h Judge hears the case. I do not think a Conservative Judge is likely to let his or her political views decide the case and rule against Disney. I could see a liberal judge rule in favor of Disney for political reasons but Conservative Judges follow the US Constitution and rule of law and both are on Disney's side. Just look up O'Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996).

I have to agree. It's not so much a slam dunk for the state with a Trump appointee
as many here think there is. Conservatives in general are concerned about government overreach and/or the weaponization of government against its enemies as they see coming from the left at the Federal level. Now here is an issue that Disney is claiming is happening to them at the state level, although they filed in federal court over mostly 1st amendment issues.

It's one thing to reconstitute the RCID with a Gov-appointed board. Quite another to sue over development agreements that were still legal at the time, complain that they didn't notice meetings properly noticed (not Disney fault), and sign legislation targeting monorail inspections.

Any concern over Disney "wokeness" is best left to the consumer. Witness Bud Light and Target as examples. Disney's bottom line appears down at the moment in entertainment and parks. A coincidence? Probably not. But government getting involved in targeting a company is something completely different.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

But would any get done when most blindly vote party lines or use rules to block consideration at x all?

It would hopefully force the nomination of moderate judges that both sides could agree on… unfortunately they’d probably just leave the spot open rather than nominate or vote for someone who is agreeable to the other side.

 

[GoofGoof]

It would hopefully force the nomination of moderate judges that both sides could agree on… unfortunately they’d probably just leave the spot open rather than nominate or vote for someone who is agreeable to the other side.

I would like to see the 60 vote threshold codified into law and at the same time a requirement to vote on any judge nominated through the legitimate process by the President no matter who controls the Senate. None of this just waiting in hopes of “your guy“ getting in. It won’t guarantee the spots are filled but it’s much easier to not vote than vote no, especially for swing state Senators.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I have to agree. It's not so much a slam dunk for the state with a Trump appointee
as many here think there is. Conservatives in general are concerned about government overreach and/or the weaponization of government against its enemies as they see coming from the left at the Federal level. Now here is an issue that Disney is claiming is happening to them at the state level, although they filed in federal court over mostly 1st amendment issues.

It's one thing to reconstitute the RCID with a Gov-appointed board. Quite another to sue over development agreements that were still legal at the time, complain that they didn't notice meetings properly noticed (not Disney fault), and sign legislation targeting monorail inspections.

Any concern over Disney "wokeness" is best left to the consumer. Witness Bud Light and Target as examples. Disney's bottom line appears down at the moment in entertainment and parks. A coincidence? Probably not. But government getting involved in targeting a company is something completely different.

@seascape mentioned O'Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake (1996).

Yes, the majority opinion ruled for O'Hare Truck Service.

But this ignores the dissenting opinion from Associate Justices Scalia (perhaps the ultimate conservative judge) and Thomas (who still sits on the Supreme Court). In his dissent, Scalia (joined by Thomas) wrote:

There can be no dispute that, like rewarding one's allies, the correlative act of refusing to reward one's opponents - and at bottom both of today's cases involve exactly that - is an American political tradition as old as the Republic.​

​

...​

​

Government favors those who agree with its political views, and disfavors those who disagree, every day - in where it builds its public works, in the kinds of taxes it imposes and collects, in its regulatory prescriptions, in the design of its grant and benefit programs - in a million ways, including the letting of contracts for government business.​

​

...​

​

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition-based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought [original emphasis] to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes. The ability to discourage eccentric views through the mild means that have historically been employed, and that the Court has now set its face against, may well be important to social cohesion. To take an uncomfortable example from real life: An organization (I shall call it the White Aryan Supremacist Party, though that was not the organization involved in the actual incident I have in mind) is undoubtedly entitled, under the Constitution, to maintain and propagate racist and antisemitic views. But when the Department of Housing and Urban Development lets out contracts to private security forces to maintain law and order in units of public housing, must it really treat this bidder the same as all others? Or may it determine that the views of this organization are not political views that it wishes to "subsidize" with public funds, nor political views that it wishes to hold up as an exemplar of the law to the residents of public housing?​

​

...​

​

Favoritism such as this happens all the time in American political life, and no one has ever thought that it violated - of all things - the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.​

The current Supreme Court has already overturned multiple prior Supreme Court rulings, including several that were considered "settled law".

Scalia's rulings are practically Bible to many in the Federalist Society. The judge now assigned to the Disney case (Winsor) has been a member of the Federalist Society since 2005.

The change in judges should make anyone cheering for Disney nervous.

 

[mkt]

From CFTOD v Disney, there was a hearing yesterday:

View attachment 720681
View attachment 720682

And here's the minutes from this hearing.

Another hearing next month.