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

[LAKid53]

I agree.

And while DeSantis v Disney may just register as a distraction to most, the outcome of this case could have some pretty profound effects on how governments in the US operate going forward.

I was thinking the same. This case will be precedent setting.

 

[LAKid53]

It is just rhetoric and talking points like any other politician in order to change the narrative and/or win a bit of public support, rather than a legal argument....I would not underestimate either legal team (Disney or Florida) in this fight.

However, the AG running her mouth isn't good. We're not talking about some press person...she's the chief legal officer of the state.

 

[Andrew C]

However, the AG running her mouth isn't good. We're not talking about some press person...she's the chief legal officer of the state.

Who is also a part of the executive branch and will be defending the Gov when they see fit....Also, you are not the target audience when she goes out and says something like this. Most of the people in here are not. I MAY be, but honesty she isn't winning me over at this point...weak argument to me...haha

 

[mikejs78]

Not being responsible for a legal document you signed in your capacity as an elected official is a really fascinating legal defense. Let’s see how it plays.

He's the CEO of the state. His signature on the legislation made it law. And he's bragged on social media, in press conferences and in a damn book what his intent was.

Plus, he appointed the board.

 

[LAKid53]

Who is also a part of the executive branch and will be defending the Gov when they see fit....Also, you are not the target audience when she goes out and says something like this. Most of the people in here are not. I MAY be, but she isn't winning me over at this point..haha

Incorrect. The attorney general in Florida is an elected official and thus a constitutional officer. DeSantis isn't her boss.

 

[Andrew C]

Incorrect. The attorney general in Florida is an elected official and thus a constitutional officer. DeSantis isn't her boss.

View attachment 712918

She is a member of the Florida cabinet which is part of the executive branch...she is going to speak on behalf of the administration when they deem appropriate. You may not like it, or like her arguments, but it is common...

 

[lazyboy97o]

Also, he talks about how it was all his doing in his book... that he wrote... and bragged about... and went on a tour in which he then bragged more about how he pulled this off on big bad Disney.

As I said yesterday, the state of Florida is about to legally swear that “Florida’s Blueprint for America” is a lie. Their only play is to say the governor is a liar. And in order to defend the supposed issues with the comprehensive plan they’ll have to say his government is incompetent.

 

[MrPromey]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/27/politics/desantis-jerusalem-speech/index.html

One advantage of suing a politician I guess is that he’s almost guaranteed to keep running his mouth about it publicly.

I wonder though about his continued repetition of the idea that Disney is just being made to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Obviously, that isn’t remotely true. But as a non-lawyer who has been interested in some of the analysis on this, is it possible that a judge could come to the conclusion that there is legitimacy in making Disney play by the same rules, and order some kind of change to what FL did without fully reconstituting RCID as it was?

Some kind of more reasonable middle ground where instead of the district being 100% controlled by Disney or 100% controlled by one man (DeSantis) that the board be comprised in some other way?

I think the problem here is, who's everyone else?

As has been discussed to the nth degree, basically every big player has, has had, or is trying to get, some special treatment under various circumstances.

It's just that the way those special treatments are set up are all different and unique to their instances.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with any of this if the public isn't getting screwed in the deal which in the case of Disney, they absolutely weren't.

... But people are conditioned to assume that any time a big business makes a deal with the government, it's to the detriment of everyone else.

DeSantis and Co. have been taking full advantage of this. It's easy for them to speak in vague scary terms about what Disney's been "getting away with" because that's a nice short sexy headline and the details which would better show his misrepresentation require more detailed discussion and a need for nuance and for a lot of people, when you get to that level of explanation, they assume it's an excuse.

That's how he's been able to get as much mileage out of this as he has so far and why most of his base (at the individual level) will continue to back him while everyone else starts to move away as things drag on. The truth is complicated and takes time to take in and understand - time most people don't have for things that aren't a part of their immediate concerns and responsibilities - and they already want to believe what he's saying so it's easier to not go any further in trying to understand any of it.

We see it all the time in other situations with politics the world over - people are pretty easy to hack when things are complicated and out of their wheelhouse.

 

[Dranth]

As I said yesterday, the state of Florida is about to legally swear that “Florida’s Blueprint for America” is a lie. Their own play is to say the governor is a liar. And in order to defend the supposed issues with the comprehensive plan they’ll have to say his government is incompetent.

It's almost dizzying to watch them run in circles on all this stuff. Ron owned this thing in every way possible until a lawsuit is filled and suddenly he is just an innocent, poor, downtrodden governor who had nothing to do with this. All he did was sign the laws the mean ol' legislature gave him.

I am sure Trump's ad team is looking forward to using these types of public backtracking in attack ads.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Not being responsible for a legal document you signed in your capacity as an elected official is a really fascinating legal defense. Let’s see how it plays.

That's not how responsibility in the chain of command works either, LCDR DeSantis.

 

[LAKid53]

She is a member of the Florida cabinet which is part of the executive branch...she is going to speak on behalf of the administration. You may not like it, or like her arguments, but it is common...

She does not report to the Governor. She was not nominated by the governor nor confirmed by the Florida Senate. She doesn't need approval of the governor to take legal action. And neither are the CFO or Agricultural Commissioner. Cabinet members have disagreed in the past and not "taken the governor's side". One reason the structure of the cabinet was reduced by constitutional amendment in 1998, effective 2003. The amendment also removed the phrase "the Governor shall be assisted by" the Cabinet. Giving each cabinet officer the same equal footing as the governor so that cabinet officers, constitutionally, don't have to capitulate to the demands of the governor, as the heads of executive branch departments must.

While she may not be as independent as prior AGs, he's not her boss.

 

[Brian]

If we are to take AG Moody at her word, it would seem that at least a portion of the state's defense will be that DeSantis, in his official capacity as governor, didn't initiate any retaliatory actions against Disney.

Considering the passages from DeSantis' book Disney cites in their complaint, I can't see that argument holding up too well, unless they can get the judge to accept the premise that even though DeSantis more or less "asked" the legislature to dissolve RCID, he wasn't the one who actually did it; he just signed the bill the legislature presented him.

An uphill battle, but they have to present something as a defense.

 

[Andrew C]

She does not report to the Governor

Didn't say that...although they obviously coordinate on a number of issues and priorities..

She was not nominated by the governor nor confirmed by the Florida Senate.

Didn't say that...

She doesn't need approval of the governor to take legal action

Didn't say that...

Cabinet members have disagreed in the past and not "taken the governor's side"

That is not going to happen here..

he's not her boss.

Didn't say that...

 

[LAKid53]

It's almost dizzying to watch them run in circles on all this stuff. Ron owned this thing in every way possible until a lawsuit is filled and suddenly he is just an innocent, poor, downtrodden governor who had nothing to do with this. All he did was sign the laws the mean ol' legislature gave him.

I am sure Trump's ad team is looking forward to using these types of public backtracking in attack ads.

SB 1604 is at his direction. HB 1557 was at his direction. SB-4C and SB-9B were at his direction. Anyone thinking otherwise isn't paying attention. And he's being sued, not as a private person, but in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Florida.

 

[Fljay73]

WDW is filing a Federal Lawsuit based on the Conservative US Supreme Court ruling (5-4) that Corporate Free Speech is protected. They are not arguing anything about state law & that the Governor & the state of Florida is targeting them because of their Right to Free Speech.

 

[GrumpyFan]

If we are to take AG Moody at her word, it would seem that at least a portion of the state's defense will be that DeSantis, in his official capacity as governor, didn't initiate any retaliatory actions against Disney.

Considering the passages from DeSantis' book Disney cites in their complaint, I can't see that argument holding up too well, unless they can get the judge to accept the premise that even though DeSantis more or less "asked" the legislature to dissolve RCID, he wasn't the one who actually did it; he just signed the bill the legislature presented him.

An uphill battle, but they have to present something as a defense.

Also, as pointed out by the suit, Desantis convened a special session of congress to specifically address the battle with Disney.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a second session this year as well?
If so, they have spent a LOT of taxpayer money in this fight.

 

[Brian]

If we are to take AG Moody at her word, it would seem that at least a portion of the state's defense will be that DeSantis, in his official capacity as governor, didn't initiate any retaliatory actions against Disney.

Considering the passages from DeSantis' book Disney cites in their complaint, I can't see that argument holding up too well, unless they can get the judge to accept the premise that even though DeSantis more or less "asked" the legislature to dissolve RCID, he wasn't the one who actually did it; he just signed the bill the legislature presented him.

An uphill battle, but they have to present something as a defense.

I don't want to edit the post quoted as it already has some "likes" and those people who "liked" the original might not like this additional thought:

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I can only speculate as to if there is a distinction in any relevant case law or statute which would make a distinction between DeSantis privately asking the legislature to pass a bill eliminating RCID, and DeSantis taking executive action to eliminate RCID (without the legislature's involvement). Of course, the latter would be squarely on him, but the former (which is what happened) is a little more nuanced. While he was under no obligation to sign the legislation into law, he was under no obligation to veto it either. The state will likely argue that he was merely fulfilling his constitutional obligation of acting upon a bill presented to him by the legislature.

If the state can successfully make the case that the former is different from the latter, and that DeSantis didn't initiate any retaliatory actions against Disney, the state might be able to prevail because the legislature is not named. If I'm not mistaken, they can't be.

None of this to say that it's a slam dunk argument. It's a stretch.

 

[Vacationeer]

There is a vocal/noisy minority of people that refer to this legal back and forth between Florida and Disney as "outrage" when most people see it as a simple distraction and are focused on living their lives.

True. My sister basically said just that when she responded to the D vs D suit yesterday with ‘OK who cares?’

I said the escalation could impact our experience at WDW. Also impacts people who like the constitution.

For background, her family is joining us this year at Poly DVC this December. Monorail to MK and Epcot could be impacted. Maybe higher taxes during the trip, specifically targeted to WDW guests. If these were born just the past 2 weeks, what else may change between now and December? Also, she works in a law office.

Point being average citizens outside Florida aren’t really motivated to understand all that’s going on here. imo Disney‘s restrained response has been a great strategy.

 

[flynnibus]

WDW is filing a Federal Lawsuit based on the Conservative US Supreme Court ruling (5-4) that Corporate Free Speech is protected. They are not arguing anything about state law & that the Governor & the state of Florida is targeting them because of their Right to Free Speech.

Hi new member! Before posting about the lawsuit, you might want to actually read it.

Because you're wrong... on many counts.

 

[Andrew C]

I don't want to edit this post as it already has some "likes" and those people who "liked" the original might not like this additional thought:

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I can only speculate as to if there is a distinction in any relevant case law or statute which would make a distinction between DeSantis privately asking the legislature to pass a bill eliminating RCID, and DeSantis taking executive action to eliminate RCID (without the legislature's involvement). Of course, the latter would be squarely on him, but the former is a little more nuanced. While he was under no obligation to sign the legislation into law, he was under no obligation to veto it either.

If the state can successfully make the case that the former is different from the latter, and that DeSantis didn't initiate any retaliatory actions against Disney, the state might be able to prevail because the legislature is not named.

None of this to say that it's a slam dunk argument. It's a stretch, to say the least.

I would be surprised if this is even going to be an argument...but, could be wrong...