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

[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.

 

[mkt]

And today's filings in Disney v DeSantis

 

[JoeCamel]

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'm not so certain one branch of our government really cares if another branch is fully staffed. They let it slide for years. Kinda like limiting what the IRS is capable of investigating by chopping their funding?
Equal but we own the purse strings so ha ha......

 

[GoofGoof]

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?

This piece is what is particularly disturbing. What he is essentially saying is that free speech should be protected….to an extent….but if that speech is deemed to be against public interest then it’s ok to maybe not protect it. Who decides what’s a negative to society? When we look at this particular case, this is how “woke Disney” plays in. If a judge takes up this point of view and if that judge also deems Disney’s woke ideology and opposition to a bill designed to “protect children” is not in the public’s interest then they could discount their right to speak out. I think this is why the judge matters and why a judge who is an extreme, political appointee who was approved on straight partisan lines is problematic for Disney. This judge already ruled in favor of the bill that started this all. His opinion on the merits of the bill are well known.

The contract portion could be less problematic, but who knows.

 

[GoofGoof]

Scalia is saying that the First Amendment protects us from prison and fines. Beyond that, the United States has over 200 years of history where political allies are awarded and political opponents are not.

"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."

As others have previously written on this thread, the First Amendment does not protect us from public policies that favor some over others. We see this in all states, including California. According to Scalia, if someone is "Pro Oil", California can pass laws that favor "Pro Green" and hurt "Pro Oil". For someone who is "Pro Oil", these laws very much hurt them, but this is not protected by the First Amendment.

As far as who decides, you do every time you vote.

We don’t vote for Federal Judges. They are not supposed to be political. I know that’s not actually the case a lot of the time anymore, but these guys should be above politics

For that analogy to apply to this case Disney would have to be suing in Federal court saying that the initial bill that started this is a violation of their first amendment rights. There is a huge difference between CA passing a pro-green bill that has what the state perceives as positive benefit to the people but indirectly hurts a company that pollutes (and hurts many companies, not targeted to just 1) and FL passing legislation that targets one company directly in an attempt to harm their business for no other reason than to punish them for speaking out against an unrelated bill. Outside of punishing Disney for being woke what benefit does any of this have for the people or the state? None, zero, zilch.

I agree that favoritism happens all the time in politics. There’s a reason corporations spend millions on political donations. I don’t see how this is favoritism. If say FL passed a law to allow casinos everywhere and Disney opposed that because it would hurt their business it wouldn’t be a first amendment violation. This situation is nothing like that.

 

[GoofGoof]

It's only one third of my lifetime ago.

I am only half as “wise” as you, but I hear what you are saying.

It’s good to keep in prospective that things change over time. WDW has been around for 50+ years and will likely be around for 50+ more. This is just a speed bump. Politics change too. 60 years ago FL was tripping over itself to bring in Disney.….things change. As recently as 30 years ago CA was a reliably red state. Many younger people don’t realize that. So the situation with DeSantis and in FL politics in general seems glum, but it will work itself out over time.

 

[mkt]

As recently as 30 years ago CA was a reliably red state.

30 years ago, Florida was a blue state. I remember.

 

[Chi84]

@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.

You have to remember that the case you're talking about was decided on a motion to dismiss where the allegations of retaliatory conduct stated in the complaint were taken as true.

The dissent noted that "They say hard cases make bad law. The cases before the Court today set the blood boiling, with the arrogance that they seem to display on the part of elected officials. Shall the American System of Justice let insolent, petty tyrant politicians get away with this? What one tends to forget is that we have heard only the plaintiffs' tale. These suits were dismissed before trial, so the 'facts' the Court recites in its opinions assume the truth of the allegations made (or the preliminary evidence presented) by the plaintiffs. We have no idea whether the allegations are true or false -- but if they are true, they are certainly highly unusual. Elected officials do not thrive on arrogance."

Wait til the court gets a load of DeSantis' admissions on the campaign trail and in his book.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I’d love to see everyone vote in the primaries, giving the Dems a vote in the Rep primary and the Reps a vote in the Dem primary would definitely bring the candidates towards the center. Instead of a choice between two extremes that one party loves and the other hates we’d have a choice between the two candidates most acceptable to everyone.

We wouldn’t get any astronomical change but we would get a lot more accomplished.

I live in a state with open primaries. No one registers a party when we register to vote. we can choose whatever primary to vote in that we wish (but only one). I quite prefer this to my previous state where we had to register by party.

 

[seascape]

I think Scalus will rule in favor of Disney. I believe that he will look at what DeSantis and the legislature said. In the tow truck case there was not the number of statements made by the Government. No one else has DeSantis's record of saying Disney is woke and Florida is where woke goes to die. DeSantis wants to harm Disney for expressing a political view. The Government did not want to drive the tow truck company out of business or harm them, only take one relatively small contract away from them. Now, if Florida had just done away with the RCID, Scalia may have voted in DeSantis's favor but because the record clearly shows DeSantis was afraid that the 2 counties could have given Disney a new special district that to prevent that he reinstated the special district under his complete control. This case not only has all the reasons to favor Disney like the tow truck company but many more.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think Scalus will rule in favor of Disney. I believe that he will look at what DeSantis and the legislature said. In the tow truck case there was not the number of statements made by the Government. No one else has DeSantis's record of saying Disney is woke and Florida is where woke goes to die. DeSantis wants to harm Disney for expressing a political view. The Government did not want to drive the tow truck company out of business or harm them, only take one relatively small contract away from them. Now, if Florida had just done away with the RCID, Scalia may have voted in DeSantis's favor but because the record clearly shows DeSantis was afraid that the 2 counties could have given Disney a new special district that to prevent that he reinstated the special district under his complete control. This case not only has all the reasons to favor Disney like the tow truck company but many more.

 

[mikejs78]

A conservative justice (and member of the Federalist Society) just might find in Scalia's words a reason to rule in favor of DeSantis. This is why the change of judge assigned to the case is such a big deal.

A circuit court judge can't rule based on a Supreme Court dissent. They are bound by existing precedent.

 

[MandaM]

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.

You honestly think conservative judges don't rule based on politics? Liberal judges follow the Constitution just as much as conservative judges do. It's pure partisan propaganda to pretend that one side has a lock on judicial, and constitutional, purity.

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.

Yes, conservatives are quite concerned about what they see as overreach/weaponization of the government from the left. But, they're often big fans of overreach/weaponization from the right, as DeSantis has shown us.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Scalia is saying that the First Amendment protects us from prison and fines. Beyond that, the United States has over 200 years of history where political allies are awarded and political opponents are not.

"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."

As others have previously written on this thread, the First Amendment does not protect us from public policies that favor some over others. We see this in all states, including California. According to Scalia, California can pass laws that favor "Pro Green" and hurt "Pro Oil". For someone who is "Pro Oil", these laws very much hurt them, but this is not protected by the First Amendment.

As far as who decides, you do every time you vote.

This isn't favoritism or a lack of it, this is targeting Disney specifically.

This concept doesn't fit here because the deal between Disney and Florida was a mutually beneficial one agreed to by both parties.

Disney took on more expenses, and paid more in taxes, in exchange for control.

If they had dissolved the district completely, then it might be seen as a refusal to negotiate a deal with Disney, and might fall under the umbrella of Disney not being awarded.

Right now Florida has taken action such that they keep the things they want, Disney paying more in taxes, but also exert the type of control they would over businesses that don't pay the premiums Disney does.

This is punitive, plain and simple. It's hard to believe this can be allowed to stand. Florida is taking more money from Disney relative to other taxpayers but giving nothing in return.

 

[GoofGoof]

Legislation targeting one individual is a Bill of Attainder and unconstitiutional in the USA so the Florida legislature tried to provide cover for this by targeting improvement districts that met a date range criteria.

Of course it's retrubutional, everyone opposing Disney has admitted this over and over since the start.

The fun part of any suit is watching judges make hay of crepuscular logic and convoluted legal theory.

I’m not sure these guys care about the constitution. I have said from the beginning that part of this plan is to attempt to use the courts to validate this kind of retaliation. If the state wins this case then they have a blank check to punish anyone who speaks against them on any issue. They have gone out of their way to eliminate any doubt on whether this is retaliation. They want the courts to rule that the retaliation was ok. I think as @ParentsOf4 posted the case now revolves around a judge and/or appeals court and possibly the US Supreme Court ruling whether freedom of speech is limited to just not jailing or fining a person.

I don’t know how this will turn out, but if the state wins and especially if it happens at the Supreme Court level it will essentially eliminate the Freedom of Speech for Corporations. With the war on woke corporations ramping up I think that is politically what is desired by a lot of people. Companies that incorporate diversity, equity and inclusion in any way can and will be punished by the government in many places.

 

[MisterPenguin]

crepuscular logic

Cats are crepuscular. Examples of crepuscular logic:

 

[RamblinWreck]

I’m not sure these guys care about the constitution. I have said from the beginning that part of this plan is to attempt to use the courts to validate this kind of retaliation. If the state wins this case then they have a blank check to punish anyone who speaks against them on any issue. They have gone out of their way to eliminate any doubt on whether this is retaliation. They want the courts to rule that the retaliation was ok. I think as @ParentsOf4 posted the case now revolves around a judge and/or appeals court and possibly the US Supreme Court ruling whether freedom of speech is limited to just not jailing or fining a person.

I don’t know how this will turn out, but if the state wins and especially if it happens at the Supreme Court level it will essentially eliminate the Freedom of Speech for Corporations. With the war on woke corporations ramping up I think that is politically what is desired by a lot of people. Companies that incorporate diversity, equity and inclusion in any way can and will be punished by the government in many places.

I think it will essentially eliminate freedom of speech, full stop. There’s no reason it would have to be limited to corporations.