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

[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:

 

[Stripes]

Not sure if this has been shared yet. I’d recommend reading the accompanying article.

 

[RamblinWreck]

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

Moving Disney World is not realistic.

The lawsuit was the last resort. They didn’t actually have another option.

 

[JohnD]

More DeSantis/Disney news from Sayfie Review

NYTimes: Man vs. Mouse: Ron DeSantis Finds Taking On Disney Is a Dicey Business

---

AP: Florida Gov. DeSantis says Disney lawsuit is political

---

Herald: Despite warnings, Florida Senate moves bill to aid DeSantis in battle with Disney

---

FlaPol: Marco Rubio says Ron DeSantis’ Disney pressure could be ‘problematic’

The Hill: Rubio warns against Florida going after companies for ‘political purposes’

---

FlaPol: Ashley Moody 'puzzled' by Disney naming Ron DeSantis in its lawsuit against the state

---

Newsweek: Kevin McCarthy urges Ron DeSantis to end Disney feud

---

Politico: DeSantis rivals are enjoying his feud with Disney. Here are the Republicans who’ve lashed out.

TB Times: DeSantis v. Disney: Who has the edge in a long, drawn-out fight?

TB Times: As DeSantis takes heat for Disney feud, Florida lawmakers remain behind him

 

[Patcheslee]

Senate Special session did not meet today I guess. SB1250 will not be addressed until Monday.

 

[mikejs78]

From Wiki:

"In the context of United States law, originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that asserts that all statements in the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted"."

Wiki isn't always accurate, and in this case that's not a great explanation. Justice Scalia wrote about originalism as:

The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.

In regards to Citizens United, an originalist case for it can be summed up as:

• The constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech for individuals", it says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech".
• We assume corporations have other rights, such as the right to due process, the right to have their contracts upheld, etc.
• Therefore, since corporations are nothing more than groups of people, they are entitled to 1st amendment rights by virtue of the fact that the people who belong to a corporation are entitled to first amendment rights.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the orignalist case for CU...

Same goes for contract law. The constitution says that "No state shall...pass any law...imparing the obligation of contracts". The orignalist looks at the text of this and says that no contracts, public or private, should be impared.

Now, not every judge who claims to be an originalist, is in fact an originalist. Many are partisan. And from the point of view of the appelate court, they are bound by Citizens United in considering that corporations are entitled to first amendment rights.

 

[LittleBuford]

I think his point is less about being bothered by the term chosen, and more about how nobody seems to be able to settle on what that term is.

I would guess the vast majority of people have no idea what “2slgbtq” even means.

I know I don’t. I even googled it a second ago and read what it stands for, and still don’t know what it means.

I'm gay, and I didn't know what the 2 or the s meant. I had to look it up. Don't mind its inclusion, but it is fairly obscure.

I believe 2S has particular currency in Canada (where @Disney Analyst is from) because of its use among First Nations communities.

That people have to look it up is no bad thing. On the contrary, it’s an opportunity to learn something new.

 

[JohnD]

Senate Special session did not meet today I guess. SB1250 will not be addressed until Monday.

They did meet. The bill was put on "Special Order", meaning it's heard for 2nd reading then rolls over to third reading. They didn't get to all bills on the calendar (it was toward the bottom). They pick up the Special Order calendar again next week.

From here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Home/4-28-2023?Tab=SenateFloor

The Senate will convene on Monday, May 1, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., or upon the call of the President.

S 1250 General Bill by DiCeglie Department of Transportation	4/28/2023 S: Retained on Special Order Calendar

 

[Touchdown]

So the board still hasn’t been confirmed yet right? If they don’t get confirmed by Monday then their term ends in 45 days. Also of note, the legislature still hasn’t passed a bill for DeSantis to stay Gov if he becomes a presidential candidate. If these facts remain then it’s highly likely DeSantis will not be Gov in 45 days and the current Lt Gov will be appointing the new board…