If Rudy isn't available, I know a lawyer who can release a Kraken, should it become necessary.If Rudy G takes the case perhaps he will use Four Seasons WDW as a backdrop for his news conference instead of the Four Seasons Landscaping backdrop
Which democrats voted for the bill?
How many were there before?
RCID owns the power station; RCES just operates it.
Yes, but that's not an answer to my question. My question was (paraphrase) ... What happens if the legislature does something and one member of the legislature has a clear first amendment-infringing motive and one member of the legislature has a clear public policy purpose (and everyone else in the legislature is silent)?
Which bill? The one that started all this had one yes vote from democrats in the house and none in the senate. I believe zero or a very small number of democrats voted in the special session for RCID to be removed.
I agree a corporation can assert a constitutional right. My question is, 1) who has sufficient standing to assert that right (a hugely significant question that can and does make many a constitutional case) and 2) is this district a “right” or interest that implicates 1A/14A issues.
I answered your question. If one member of the legislature has a clear public policy concern with the district there are enforcement mechanisms in place to deal with that. I have roughly outlined some of them. Legislature dissolution is not the answer to your hypothetical problem.
The vote to dissolve RCID went along party lines
There were 5 and now they operate 2 still in operation.
Yeah, shame about that
They have to show actual or imminent injury and I don't think they can. "We don't get to approve our own permits anymore" isn't an injury. And even if it was, I'm not sure Disney wants to even try and make that argument in court.
Well, it is convenient because not a single Democrat voted to dissolve Reedy Creek. Only those evil Republicans did. And I believe a grand total of 1 Democrat voted for the don’t say gay bill. I have no idea what bill you’re claiming a majority of Democrats voted for, but it’s not either one of the bills that is relevant to this discussion. What are you talking about?
... and one of those legally available enforcement mechanisms is to dissolve the special district. And that's the one this legislator (in my hypothetical) picked. So what happens?
They never got to approve their own permits. And here you go again thinking everything revolves around permits.
Not exactly.
I know I already commented on this but I’m really curious… why did you choose to lie about something that’s easily disproved
That's a huge part of my point. Technically, they (Disney) never got to approve their own permits so they can't march into court and say we've been injured because we don't get to approve our own permits anymore. All that has changed is the entity that approves the permits.
This is a stronger argument (taxes), but why and how are the taxes going up? You have Democrat elected officials proclaiming that the state legislature's action just gave Disney a major tax forgiveness. You have the guy who wrote the bill and the Governor saying that's wrong and that ultimately (the key word) the company's taxes will go up. But that's not enough to prove standing ("ultimately something bad is going to happen"). Disney would have to show in court how this dissolution (not something that happens a year from now in a different bill) caused their taxes to go up. I don't think they can because I don't think it does.
