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

[flynnibus]

If Disney wins on 1st amendment violations then RCID is returned to its original status at least for now. The contract issues are less important in that case, but for future actions it’s still important to establish the legality of the government attempting to void a legal contract

If disney gets 4c and 9b thrown out… the court could just entirely skip ruling on the others because it would be moot to the parties in the case.

 

[Chi84]

Yes, we have seen Disney’s side of the argument.

Even if we agree with it, the other side gets to present their case.

A partisan judge is not necessarily going to agree with Disney’s argument.

Recent news stories suggest we’ve seen some justices accept all sorts of arguments, as long as it gets them to the ruling they want to reach.

I’m sure you’ve been in court where you know you are absolutely screwed with certain judges before you say a word.

I was just referring to the part where Disney admits in its own pleading that the state has a valid interest in overseeing how its special districts are run.

Of course the other side gets to present its case, but it will be awhile before that happens, so in the interim we're speculating as to what that will be and how successful it will be.

Analyzing precedent is also very difficult; the well-established principle in this country is that government is not authorized to use its official power to punish citizens for their political speech and this extends to corporations. I've read many cases and haven't seen one where a government official was so brazen about using the legislature to punish and control speech. Most of the cases involve subtle actions that need to be analyzed to determine whether the right to free speech was impacted. Here, we know what was done and why and are looking at precedent to see if there's a way it can be justified under current principles of law. In short, this case is different.

The remainder of your post makes me sad. It is true - and has always been true - that judges have ideological leanings. They are human beings with beliefs, values and experiences that come to bear on their rulings. But federal judges in particular are highly qualified lawyers who take pride in their ability to analyze the law and apply legal precedents to their rulings. Implying that any judge on that level will make a decision based on politics without considering the issues is not fair.

State court judges are more of a wildcard when it comes to qualifications, but I'm not even comfortable with the idea that the Florida courts would immediately come out in favor of the state on this issue. I'm aware that things are changing, but I hope our judges still have some principles.

 

[tissandtully]

Some good charts in here, it's also funny how the anchors are just confused at the whole fight, like everyone else seems to be

 

[wdwmagic]

CNN reporting House Speaker McCarthy (R) says DeSantis should sit down w/Disney and end feud, threat to build prison next to WDW "not a good idea."

Sitting down to end feud only works when both sides are interested in a resolution. It is quite obvious here that DeSantis just wants destruction of Disney because they dared to speak up against him.

 

[tissandtully]

Sitting down to end feud only works when both sides are interested in a resolution. It is quite obvious here that DeSantis just wants destruction of Disney because they dared to speak up against him.

It would also go against his "Never Back Down" philosophy.

 

[GoofGoof]

If disney gets 4c and 9b thrown out… the court could just entirely skip ruling on the others because it would be moot to the parties in the case.

They could but it’s also possible those rulings are overturned on appeal. I would hope the judge rules on each complaint separately even if winning 4 and 5 makes 1, 2 and 3 unnecessary. Then on appeal if for some reason 4 and 5 are overturned the first 3 stick.

 

[GoofGoof]

Which I think would be an even more egregious ruling if that happens. Because that will give government carte blanche approval to retaliate against ANY speech it deems objectional, including protected speech. Especially when government is headed by someone as thin skinned as the Florida governor.

Yeah I agree, but it doesn’t make it any less likely to occur I would hope the merits of this case make it difficult to overturn on appeal but it appears that is what will decide the true final outcome. The initial case looks very promising for Disney.

 

[Chi84]

They could but it’s also possible those rulings are overturned on appeal. I would hope the judge rules on each complaint separately even if winning 4 and 5 makes 1, 2 and 3 unnecessary. Then on appeal if for some reason 4 and 5 are overturned the first 3 stick.

It doesn’t work that way, or at least it’s not supposed to. Judges are supposed to decide cases on the narrowest grounds possible. They are supposed to dispose of cases, not issue advisory opinions. Any rulings not necessary to disposition of the case would be treated as dicta. (Or if your from Chicago, “ditka.”)

 

[tissandtully]

Yeah I agree, but it doesn’t make it any less likely to occur I would hope the merits of this case make it difficult to overturn on appeal but it appears that is what will decide the true final outcome. The initial case looks very promising for Disney.

Would it have been better for Disney to pull a DeSantis-favorable judge at first so they could then get a reasonable judge on appeal?

 

[Dranth]

Again, I’d point to Harry Reid’s nuclear option in 2013 as changing what federal courts are turning into.

That certainly opened the door wider but the country existed for 200 years without a 60% vote threshold for federally appointed judges. Presidents were always meant to actually appoint the people they would like with a simple majority.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Would it have been better for Disney to pull a DeSantis-favorable judge at first so they could then get a reasonable judge on appeal?

That’s not how it works. An appeal will go to a three judge panel of the 11th Circuit. Who sits on the panel is a random selection. The lower court judge has no bearing.

 

[GoofGoof]

Would it have been better for Disney to pull a DeSantis-favorable judge at first so they could then get a reasonable judge on appeal?

I don’t think it matters. The judges are supposed to be unbiased.

 

[GoofGoof]

It doesn’t work that way, or at least it’s not supposed to. Judges are supposed to decide cases on the narrowest grounds possible. They are supposed to dispose of cases, not issue advisory opinions. Any rulings not necessary to disposition of the case would be treated as dicta. (Or if you’re from Chicago, “ditka.”)

Can the appeals court if they overturn a favorable ruling for Disney on 1a then opine on the other complaints if they were not ruled on by the initial judge or would Disney need to refile the complaint in a new case minus the 1a sections?

 

[GrumpyFan]

Sitting down to end feud only works when both sides are interested in a resolution. It is quite obvious here that DeSantis just wants destruction of Disney because they dared to speak up against him.

This is a huge mess that could have easily been resolved by a sit-down with the leadership and a compromise reached.
Good leaders know that the first step in a conflict should ALWAYS be diplomacy and an attempt to find peaceful compromise, not a declaration of war.
Iger gets this, Desantis does not.
Not a good look for a potential Presidential candidate.

 

[Heppenheimer]

This is a huge mess that could have easily been resolved by a sit-down with the leadership and a compromise reached.
Good leaders know that the first step in a conflict should ALWAYS be diplomacy and an attempt to find peaceful compromise, not a declaration of war.
Iger gets this, Desantis does not.
Not a good look for a potential Presidential candidate.

I wonder, did Chapek get it? He didn't seem like a "Let's sit down and talk this over" kind of guy.

 

[Dranth]

Then there was a relatively brief period in the middle to late 20th Century where judges were primarily appointed based on qualifications. But this is not the historical norm in the United States.

Throughout most of its history, the judiciary, like all branches of the U.S. government, we’re highly partisan and subject to cronyism.

The era of relatively neutral judges largely follows the era of the 60 Vote Rule.

Unlike the House, the Senate used to be civil with each other outside the floor. There are stories aplenty of Democrat and Republican senators attacking each other publicly, and then going out for drinks together privately later that same day.

The termination of the 60 Vote Rule signaled an end to that era. It was a sign of the change, not the cause.

Sure, but like all things political, it was eventually turned into a weapon to prevent any judges from being appointed.

I'm not found of how judges are appointed personally or the whole life term aspect of it but it's what we have and I doubt any lawmakers are going to put in the effort to push amendments that would alter this or even if they did, I don't have much faith it would pass.

 

[GrumpyFan]

I wonder, did Chapek get it? He didn't seem like a "Let's sit down and talk this over" kind of guy.

No, not from what I've read about him. Look at how he mishandled several other big deals.
Remember the brush up with Scarlett Johansson where he basically tried to shaft her on royalties, then called her selfish?

 

[Andrew C]

This all started with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987. There’s a reason it’s still referred to as “getting borked”.

I was reading your post here and was thinking this exactly as I was going through...and then you got to that point exactly. lol

 

[flynnibus]

They could but it’s also possible those rulings are overturned on appeal. I would hope the judge rules on each complaint separately even if winning 4 and 5 makes 1, 2 and 3 unnecessary. Then on appeal if for some reason 4 and 5 are overturned the first 3 stick.

I believe what would happen in that case is if the state law conclusion was overturned on appeal they would send the case back down to have the other elements litigated

Speculation

 

[mikejs78]

DeSantis is accruing criticism over this from his own party:

• Influential FL State Senator, Joe Gruters
• Chris Christie
• Nikki Haley
• Asa Hutchinson (Arkansas Gov.)
• New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu
• Lindsay Graham
• House Speaker Kevin McCarthy
• Mike Pence
• Donald Trump
• Wall Street Journal (editorial board)
• {edit, added:} National Review saying DeSantis is "misguided" in all this.

Of course, a common thread among these critics is that they're anticipating running against DeSantis for the Republican nomination, or, are supporting someone other than DeSantis for President.

But, it shows that they think this is a weakness for DeSantis within their party, making it harder for DeSantis to portray himself as in step with his party.

It's not going to be easy to get a crowd at a rally to chant: "Remove special districts from woke companies!!"

What is interesting is National Review and WSJ were generally pro-DeSantis a few months ago. They felt he had the populism of Trump without the crazy. To see them opine against the governor here is interesting. The National review one in particular, gets the idea of the special district reasonably right:

It’s also bad policy. Walt Disney World’s setup in Florida is, indeed, unusual, but it doesn’t quite make sense to call it a “carve-out.” Properly understood, a “carve-out” is a rule that is applied differently to entities of a similar or identical nature: The Walt Disney Company, for example, enjoys a brazen carve-out in Florida’s tech-regulation bill: an exemption for Disney+ that was not granted to Netflix, Hulu, or HBO Max. By contrast, the rules that apply to Walt Disney World could be better described as “tailored,” for, despite the insinuations of many Florida Republicans, Walt Disney World’s accommodation is unique not in its type but only in its particulars. As it happens, Florida has 1,844 special districts, of which 1,288 are, like Walt Disney World, “independent.” The Villages — where Governor DeSantis made his announcement about the review of Walt Disney World’s status — is “independent,” as are Orlando International Airport and the Daytona International Speedway. Clearly, Walt Disney World is a weird place: It is the size of San Francisco, it straddles two counties (Orange and Osceola), and, by necessity, it relies on an infrastructure cache that has been custom-built to its peculiar needs. To claim that the laws that enable this oddity to work represent a “special break” is akin to claiming that the laws that facilitate special installations such as Cape Canaveral or the World Trade Center are “special breaks”: true, in the narrowest sense, but false when examined more closely.

He ends by saying:

That’s not “fighting.” It’s a tantrum.