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

[mkt]

I'll be in a guitar lesson and unable to respond.

Fender or Gibson? Martin or Taylor? Epiphone or Squier? Marshall or Vox?

THE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW LEN!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Disney, in its filing, admits that the replacement for RCID is the current legal authority for that district.

Until and unless the original legislation is overturned, the CFTOB *is* the current legal authority for the district.

 

[mmascari]

Which is probably why I love Disney parks so much because they’re all about happiness and escapism. But now the real world and its ugliness is infecting such a beloved and happy place like a parasite.

You could say the bubble was popped or perhaps pierced.

 

[fgmnt]

Listening to a Youtube lawyer is almost as good as taking advice from Disney bus drivers.

At least the disney bus drivers are out there using their CDL everyday to actually do their jobs.

 

[Disney Analyst]

That quote and footage is insane.

There is just so much evidence that shows DeSantis had a hand in, and owns all of this. They can try and say "it wasn't him", but I don't think it would stick. The legislature is doing his bidding.

 

[mmascari]

He brings up the point that if it's Disney, not the former district, that is asserting this as a First Amendment case that due to the disclosures on the bond debt they are committing securities fraud. Disney, in its filing, admits that the replacement for RCID is the current legal authority for that district.

Disney is the targeted entity of first amendment claim and that CFTOD is the current current legal authority for that district are not contradictory statements. Also, CFTOD also isn't a replacement for RCID, it's a rename of RCID. The legal authority entity for the district didn't change at all.

Is there some imaginary gotcha hiding in there?
Are people just making stuff up now and saying it's so?

 

[Disstevefan1]

I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR NO DRAMA THIS WEEK.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Source: Scott Gustin

This guy is flat out not smart, I don’t care where he graduated from he is being sued why would he say this.

He just gave Disney more well deserved ammo, by basically saying they did it to punish.

???

He didn't JUST say this, he said it a year ago.

It was still stupid to say, but it's not like he said it yesterday.

 

[fgmnt]

A true Originalist doesn’t view corporations as having any political rights. Quoting from Citizens United:

Postratification practice bolsters the conclusion that the First Amendment, “as originally understood,” … did not give corporations political speech rights on a par with the rights of individuals. Well into the modern era of general incorporation statutes, “[t]he common law was generally interpreted as prohibiting corporate political participation,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 819 (1978) (White, J., dissenting), and this Court did not recognize any First Amendment protections for corporations until the middle part of the 20th century.​

Citizens United and Bellotti are both 5-4 decisions and both remain controversial. An Originalist might believe these were decided wrongly and overrule them.

An Originalist might examine the 1798 decision in Calder (the basis for ex post facto law restrictions) and read this:

The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid; and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property.​

A true Originalist might say to themselves that our Founding Fathers intended that restrictions on ex post facto laws apply to private contracts only.

There are degrees of Originalists. Like most justices, they tend to emphasize the parts of the law that get them to the ruling they want to get to.

As far as Bush or Trump appointees holding certain views on business, I agree Republicans historically were pro-business. But Democrats generally were pro-regulation. Does this mean we can count on liberal Judge Walker to rule in DeSantis' favor?

Companies have gone liberal (avoiding that other word) to a degree than no Republican would have imagined even 10 years ago. It would be misleading to assume that just because Republicans or their judicial appointees were pro-business before, they remain pro-business now.

Returning to my original point, Disney needs to be concerned about the justices it pulls on appeal.

This post and yours might get zapped, but it is incredibly hard to square the circle of what you consider “true Originalism” is in the context of Citizen’s United v FEC when Scalia voted on the majority and is one of, if not the number one jurist associated with the ideology and interpretations. Maybe it’s all just a load of crap cooked up by 9 jerks in nightgowns?

 

[Figgy1]

BRAVO! Well stated and all very good ideas.
I think Iger would have been agreeable to most of this, at least he expressed as much.
Highly doubtful that Chapek would, and based on the response, I doubt Desantis would either. He seems to have taken this personally and fighting them like a child who was told "no".

More of a general observation on Chapek's style of leadership than a comment how he may or may not have responded to this issue in private. Iger seems like the kind who can go on a charm offensive. Chapek had all the charm of a pile of rocks.

IMHO I don't think it would have made any difference as once the governor thought he had something to propel him to the top of the national spotlight, he wasn't going to let it go.

 

[mikejs78]

A true Originalist doesn’t view corporations as having any political rights. Quoting from Citizens United:

Postratification practice bolsters the conclusion that the First Amendment, “as originally understood,” … did not give corporations political speech rights on a par with the rights of individuals. Well into the modern era of general incorporation statutes, “[t]he common law was generally interpreted as prohibiting corporate political participation,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 819 (1978) (White, J., dissenting), and this Court did not recognize any First Amendment protections for corporations until the middle part of the 20th century.​

Citizens United and Bellotti are both 5-4 decisions and both remain controversial. An Originalist might believe these were decided wrongly and overrule them.

An Originalist might examine the 1798 decision in Calder (the basis for ex post facto law restrictions) and read this:

The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid; and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property.​

A true Originalist might say to themselves that our Founding Fathers intended that restrictions on ex post facto laws apply to private contracts only.

There are degrees of Originalists. Like most justices, they tend to emphasize the parts of the law that get them to the ruling they want to get to.

As far as Bush or Trump appointees holding certain views on business, I agree Republicans historically were pro-business. But Democrats generally were pro-regulation. Does this mean we can count on liberal Judge Walker to rule in DeSantis' favor?

Companies have gone liberal (avoiding that other word) to a degree than no Republican would have imagined even 10 years ago. It would be misleading to assume that just because Republicans or their judicial appointees were pro-business before, they remain pro-business now.

Returning to my original point, Disney needs to be concerned about the justices it pulls on appeal.

I think you misunderstand the idea of originalism...

 

[Figgy1]

I'm specifically requesting that no news drop today after the close of the NYSE, because I'll be in a guitar lesson and unable to respond.

A little birdie told me Friday news dumps are interesting to say the least. Maybe invest in popcorn futures
I am NOT a financial expert and any advice I give should be taken with a mountain of salt

 

[Surferboy567]

???

He didn't JUST say this, he said it a year ago.

It was still stupid to say, but it's not like he said it yesterday.

I didn’t read the part where it said August. Oops still though to your point it should of never been said.

 

[Andrew C]

IMHO I don't think it would have made any difference as once the governor thought he had something to propel him to the top of the national spotlight, he wasn't going to let it go.

He was already in the national spotlight with his landslide election win...and then, it seems he chose the next path poorly...one of life's mysteries I guess...

 

[GrumpyFan]

IMHO I don't think it would have made any difference as once the governor thought he had something to propel him to the top of the national spotlight, he wasn't going to let it go.

Agreed, I think he was hoping to leverage the "Disney" brand and use that as PR to help promote his candidacy, knowing that any mention of that name would garner headlines and attention. But now it's blowing up on him. The brand, according to some, may be a bit woke and mis-guided of recent, is still loved by most of America, and his antics in this fight look more like a bully and a child who was told "no" rather than a concerned leader who's "protecting children and families".

Disney has been a major contributor for more than 50 years to the growth of Florida, spending billions of dollars on their own property, but also helping to grow Florida and generating billions of dollars for the state in taxes and revenues from tourism. Attacking them in this manner is a huge disrespect for what they've done for the state. It also jeopardizes the future of their relationship with the state and only causes more issues and burden for the taxpayers and future leadership.

 

[Figgy1]

My bet is on Yesterworld beating him to the punch...

I'm hoping Martin beats everybody to the punch. That said if he chooses to do a video on the topic his will be the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hopemax]

I'm hoping Martin beats everybody to the punch. That said if he chooses to do a video on the topic his will be the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Given Martin's state of mind about the current state of WDW, I didn't think he would be game. But Martin videos are the best!

 

[Figgy1]

Given Martin's state of mind about the current state of WDW, I didn't think he would be game. But Martin videos are the best!

THE VERY BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[larryz]

If I were Bob Iger:
1) I sure as hell wouldn't have sued Florida to avoid generating more negative publicity
2) I'd seriously give other Southern states a look for relocation as it appears ABC/Disney has outworn its welcome in Florida
3) I'd start talks with Paramount Global, Blackstone Group and SeaWorld Entertainment to investigate divesting the Florida parks
4) I'd bring back Joe Rohde as Chief Imagineer of a new WDW complex in another state, making him the creative force while driving the financials

 

[Disstevefan1]

I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR NO DRAMA THIS WEEK.

That's better: