WDW Reopening Estimates

When will WDW theme parks reopen to guests?

  • May

    Votes: 34 3.0%
  • June

    Votes: 424 37.3%
  • July

    Votes: 287 25.2%
  • August

    Votes: 124 10.9%
  • September or even later in 2020

    Votes: 269 23.6%

  • Total voters
    1,138
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Higginbotham587

Active Member
Advertisement
My gosh so much of this is false. The 911 Act limits liability for the attacks to the extent of insurance coverage and required all suits to be filed in federal court. The liability limits applied to state law suits and claims to the compensation fund.




Wow..... so you mean me and the other lawyers working on tons of liability cases are doing it all wrong?!??

I should have you file Amicus briefs in my pending lawsuits.

And no..... Congress has extremely little authority to shield against state lawsuits. And no, it's not so easy to give retroactive immunity..

In fact, the airlines paid hundreds of millions in lawsuits over 9/11..



Congress did NOT give the airlines immunity from 9/11 -- Congress had no authority to do so. What Congress did, was Congress created a compensation fund. Congress then told victims: You can get money from the fund, if you waive your right to sue the airlines.
Most of the victim families went to the fund, but many chose to go with direct lawsuits instead.
 

Higginbotham587

Active Member
Read my total of 3 posts and fewer than 500 words on this subject. I never said Congress gave immunity to the airlines, I said Congress could do so and cited the analogous act of limiting airline liability. I would be delighted to see your constitutional analysis of how Congress lacks the power to preempt state tort remedies using its Commerce Clause authority. Or how the Ex Post Facto clause should be reinterpreted to apply to civil legislation, a suggestion Justice Thomas made in the 1990s I think.

Congress did NOT give the airlines immunity from 9/11 -- Congress had no authority to do so. What Congress did, was Congress created a compensation fund. Congress then told victims: You can get money from the fund, if you waive your right to sue the airlines.
Most of the victim families went to the fund, but many chose to go with direct lawsuits instead.
 

Epcotbob

Well-Known Member
Here is a pretty good analysis of when WDW might open from the Disney Tourist Blog after they stopped accepting bookings in June.

They have not yet cancelled all of the current June bookings, just not accepting new ones. He views any opening in June as “optimistic” and July more practical.

 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Read my total of 3 posts and fewer than 500 words on this subject. I never said Congress gave immunity to the airlines, I said Congress could do so and cited the analogous act of limiting airline liability. I would be delighted to see your constitutional analysis of how Congress lacks the power to preempt state tort remedies using its Commerce Clause authority. Or how the Ex Post Facto clause should be reinterpreted to apply to civil legislation, a suggestion Justice Thomas made in the 1990s I think.
Constitutional Ex post facto doesn't apply in this situation. No, the limits on airline liability are not analogous -- Because they did not give immunity. What does apply is simple 14th amendment due process. If someone files a lawsuit, that is actually an asset they own. You can't just take it away without due process. You can't just pass a law cancelling the lawsuit. Sure, you can impose limits on liability (tort caps are constantly being debated). You can regulate the procedures for claims. But you can't just give blanket immunity, it would be offensive to due process.

And no, you can't preempt state tort remedies with the commerce clause which only applies to INTERSTATE commerce. Airlines fall under Federal jurisdiction.
If someone slips and falls on my front step.. and they live in my state, and they sue me in my home state's court.... There is no interstate commerce involved, the Federal government has no ability to preempt the state tort remedies.
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Here is a pretty good analysis of when WDW might open from the Disney Tourist Blog after they stopped accepting bookings in June.

They have not yet cancelled all of the current June bookings, just not accepting new ones. He views any opening in June as “optimistic” and July more practical.

They have even started to survey guests about, "what if not all hotels are open"..

Seems Disney is keeping their option open to partially re-open in June at some point. They could just open select hotels with the reservations already in place. Give people in closed hotels the option of switching over.
It's pretty clear that there will not be a *full* reopening any time in June. But we might see things starting to partially re-open by late June.

You will get a sense of any re-opening about a month before -- Workers will start to be called back, modifications will start being made to the parks to accommodate social distancing, etc. There were rumors of "testing procedures" at Shanghai several weeks before the re-opening there.

So right now, the *most optimistic* view is a partial re-opening by mid to late June.
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Why do people think throwing baseless facts make it true? As of 2019, there were 328.2M people in the US. As of May 12, 2020, the CDC has 1.3M TOTAL cases in the US. Only 0.3% of people have been confirmed to have had. That number is undoubtedly wrong due the number of people actually tested. If you look at the CDC graphic, all the highly effected areas follow your major media markets due to proximity. Why is that? Because people want to do whatever they want to do. Only go out for essentials and wash your hands!
Anti-body testing and other studies are pretty consistent with the numbers I cited. The vast majority of Americans have not been infected yet, but it is MUCH higher than the confirmed 0.3% rate. At best, we have been identifying 1 in 10 infections nationwide.
 

ParkerLoLs

Well-Known Member
Here is a pretty good analysis of when WDW might open from the Disney Tourist Blog after they stopped accepting bookings in June.

They have not yet cancelled all of the current June bookings, just not accepting new ones. He views any opening in June as “optimistic” and July more practical.

Optimistic and practical? Doubtful.
 

monothingie

Not Monty
Premium Member
Two things of interest.

1. CNBC is reporting that Disney stands to loose at minimum $1B for every month the parks remain closed.
2. Senator Rick Scott in an interview on FBN says virus liability protection for corporations is nearing agreement and we could see something in the very near term.
 

Epcotbob

Well-Known Member
They have even started to survey guests about, "what if not all hotels are open"..

Seems Disney is keeping their option open to partially re-open in June at some point. They could just open select hotels with the reservations already in place. Give people in closed hotels the option of switching over.
It's pretty clear that there will not be a *full* reopening any time in June. But we might see things starting to partially re-open by late June.

You will get a sense of any re-opening about a month before -- Workers will start to be called back, modifications will start being made to the parks to accommodate social distancing, etc. There were rumors of "testing procedures" at Shanghai several weeks before the re-opening there.

So right now, the *most optimistic* view is a partial re-opening by mid to late June.
I'm still holding out for phased openings in June, I think they *want* to.....but are waiting to see what happens with other Florida re-openings.

Optimistic and practical? Doubtful.
Hopelessly optimistic and Not really practical? Perhaps.....
 

mhaftman7

Well-Known Member
Anti-body testing and other studies are pretty consistent with the numbers I cited. The vast majority of Americans have not been infected yet, but it is MUCH higher than the confirmed 0.3% rate. At best, we have been identifying 1 in 10 infections nationwide.
How can you cite numbers that don’t exist? The CDC is lowballing the number of cases? The evidence you’ve provided may work in advertising but not with me, or a lot of other people.
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
How can you cite numbers that don’t exist? The CDC is lowballing the number of cases? The evidence you’ve provided may work in advertising but not with me, or a lot of other people.
huh?? The numbers do exist. There have been an increasing number of anti-body studies.
 

Higginbotham587

Active Member
Please explain how the purely intrastate possession of marijuana can be criminalized by the federal government. Raich says the commerce clause allows that. That goes back to Wickard v Fillburn. And you still haven’t explained how Title II of the civil rights act could possibly be constitutional if your fetishization of the word “interstate” was so important. Justice Thomas holds your views, the rest of the Supreme Court does not. Read Lopez v United States and Raich.

It scares me that there are lawyers out there that do not know the basics.

Constitutional Ex post facto doesn't apply in this situation. No, the limits on airline liability are not analogous -- Because they did not give immunity. What does apply is simple 14th amendment due process. If someone files a lawsuit, that is actually an asset they own. You can't just take it away without due process. You can't just pass a law cancelling the lawsuit. Sure, you can impose limits on liability (tort caps are constantly being debated). You can regulate the procedures for claims. But you can't just give blanket immunity, it would be offensive to due process.

And no, you can't preempt state tort remedies with the commerce clause which only applies to INTERSTATE commerce. Airlines fall under Federal jurisdiction.
If someone slips and falls on my front step.. and they live in my state, and they sue me in my home state's court.... There is no interstate commerce involved, the Federal government has no ability to preempt the state tort remedies.
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Please explain how the purely intrastate possession of marijuana can be criminalized by the federal government. Raich says the commerce clause allows that. That goes back to Wickard v Fillburn. And you still haven’t explained how Title II of the civil rights act could possibly be constitutional if your fetishization of the word “interstate” was so important. Justice Thomas holds your views, the rest of the Supreme Court does not. Read Lopez v United States and Raich.

It scares me that there are lawyers out there that do not know the basics.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.

The commerce clause has been read very broadly indeed. But never so broadly as to allow the Federal government to regulate slip and fall lawsuits on someone’s front step.
In fact, the majority of the Court wouldn’t even uphold the ACA based on the commerce clause.
Indeed you should read Lopez — wherein they Court held the commerce clause did NOT allow the Federal government to create gun free school zones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom