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

GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
JohnD said:
The Governor received SB 1604 (revoking RCID development agreement) today. He has until May 20 to act on the bill. (By Statute, after presentation, the Governor has 7 days while the Legislature is in Session and 15 days when the Legislature is not in Session to act on bill. The Legislature adjourned sine die today, making the requirement 15 days.)

Press release here: https://www.flgov.com/2023/05/05/governor-desantis-receives-one-bill-from-the-florida-legislature-9/
Click to expand...
So he has 15 days to return to the state and…..you know…..do his actual job 🙀🙀🙀
 
JAB

JAB

Well-Known Member
MagicHappens1971 said:
I think they know they already made their bed. Might as well sleep in it and score political points in the interim. Even if it’s likely all this nonsense gets struck down
Click to expand...
I still can't tell if they know they don't have case but keep digging themselves into a hole to show their supporters they're "fighting," or if they're just blind idealogues who genuinely think what they're doing is "right."

Probably some in column A, some in column B.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
JAB said:
I still can't tell if they know they don't have case but keep digging themselves into a hole to show their supporters they're "fighting," or if they're just blind idealogues who genuinely think what they're doing is "right."

Probably some in column A, some in column B.
Click to expand...
Nothing about this from day one has been about ideology…

It’s just the the thirst for power.

And money = power


…there’s your Friday afternoon news dump 🤫
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
JAB said:
It seems to me that, by enacting yet another piece of retaliatory legislation, all the state is really accomplishing is giving Disney more ammunition for their lawsuit.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he cares. He has told anyone who will listen he’s taking these actions to punish Disney for being woke. He’s not trying to hide it. He thinks the ends justify the means. I believe the end game is to have the courts rule this behavior is acceptable so then he can continue unrestrained.

@ParentsOf4 posted a dissent earlier from Scalia/Thomas where they disagreed with a first amendment ruling because they believe essentially in levels of free speech and that the government should determine what speech is appropriate. See the example below. So how is that related to this? If the same logic is applied, but instead of white supremicist group you sub in woke corporation you can see how dangerous this becomes when the government can decide which speech is free. I’m not saying the courts will rule this way, but if they did it would significantly change how free speech works for corporations.

ParentsOf4 said:
Let's look more closely at the case referenced by David French in his New York Times article, "Disney v. DeSantis, How Strong Is the Company's Lawsuit?"

In O'Hare Truck Service v the City of Northlake, Associate Justice Kennedy wrote the 7-2 majority opinion. The majority included historically liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Kennedy himself was a swing vote. For example, Kennedy was the deciding vote in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. O'Connor also joined the majority, and she is largely viewed as having shifted from more conservative at the start of her term to more liberal by the end.

However, the Court's two most conservative justices, Scalia and Thomas, dissented. In their dissent, Scalia wrote:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought [original emphasis] to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes. The ability to discourage eccentric views through the mild means that have historically been employed, and that the Court has now set its face against, may well be important to social cohesion. To take an uncomfortable example from real life: An organization (I shall call it the White Aryan Supremacist Party, though that was not the organization involved in the actual incident I have in mind) is undoubtedly entitled, under the Constitution, to maintain and propagate racist and antisemitic views. But when the Department of Housing and Urban Development lets out contracts to private security forces to maintain law and order in units of public housing, must it really treat this bidder the same as all others? Or may it determine that the views of this organization are not political views that it wishes to "subsidize" with public funds, nor political views that it wishes to hold up as an exemplar of the law to the residents of public housing?​

The question then becomes, is the Supreme Court of 2023 more like Scalia and Thomas, or is it more like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and O'Connor?

David French, the NYT author, has been attacking DeSantis since the fight with Disney began. (For example, see this Washington Post article.) This doesn't make French wrong, but I respectfully suggest looking more closely at articles to understand where the author is coming from and what they are not telling you.

In this post, I provided a more detailed analysis of this case from a First Amendment perspective, focusing on the current makeup of the Supreme Court and their propensity to overturn liberal precedent. IMO, Disney has a strong contract case, but any First Amendment decision will require winning over two conservative justices.
Click to expand...
 
tissandtully

tissandtully

Well-Known Member
So what happens now after this bill was signed? I'm looking out for outlets that are reporting this as a win or leaving out important context that this doesn't really do anything. No wonder so many people are misinformed:

www.reuters.com

DeSantis signs bill allowing Florida board to cancel Disney deals

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Friday signed a bill into law that gives a new board he controls the power to void development agreements its predecessor body signed with Disney - the latest episode in a feud between the conservative governor and the entertainment giant.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

www.cbsnews.com

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs bill targeting Disney

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday signed a measure aimed at overturning controversial development agreements involving Walt Disney World.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
R

RamblinWreck

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
I don’t think he cares. He has told anyone who will listen he’s taking these actions to punish Disney for being woke. He’s not trying to hide it. He thinks the ends justify the means. I believe the end game is to have the courts rule this behavior is acceptable so then he can continue unrestrained.

@ParentsOf4 posted a dissent earlier from Scalia/Thomas where they disagreed with a first amendment ruling because they believe essentially in levels of free speech and that the government should determine what speech is appropriate. See the example below. So how is that related to this? If the same logic is applied, but instead of white supremicist group you sub in woke corporation you can see how dangerous this becomes when the government can decide which speech is free. I’m not saying the courts will rule this way, but if they did it would significantly change how free speech works for corporations.
Click to expand...
The David French piece is interesting background but I have a hunch that most judges won’t view this as a conservative/liberal thing in the context of the first amendment.

If the action taken by DeSantis had been limited to the original idea to dissolve the district, it might be murkier.

At this point there have been 4 targeted pieces of legislation, Disney’s property is now stuck in an area run by a local government they have no vote in and is openly hostile toward them, with no end to the antagonism in sight.

Losing on the first amendment claims would give the green light to every government in the United States, large or small, to pass any laws/ordinances/etc they want to annoy and harass any party under their purview for any reason at all.

It doesn’t take a lot of foresight at all to see that, IMO.
 
Stripes

Stripes

Premium Member
mkt said:
And they also drew a Rick Scott appointed federalist society member.
Click to expand...
The Chief Judge reassigned the case to another judge. No reason was given.

To be clear, this is in regards to the state lawsuit filed by the board, not the federal lawsuit that Disney filed.

 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom