There are exceptions, but most judges, both liberal and conservative, tend to be above politics. Sure, they have their biases and views that color their decisions, but it is less about who scores political points vs the underlying ideology. Case in point - numerous conservative judges have already ruled against various laws proposed and signed by DeSantis. Very few judges, including the supreme court, have any cover for the former President's lawsuits regarding the 2020 election.Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.
For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.
I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.
I think pointing out the conservative judiciary overstates things by quite a bit. Even under Lujan, harm can be claimed by the fact that a board with the power to levy taxes without any kind of representation will have been created.
It actually doesn't have to even be TWDC doing the suing. One of the other (Disney affiliated) landowners can.