Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Gator Country Black Friday special!

    Now's a great time to join or renew and get $20 off your annual VIP subscription! LIMITED QUANTITIES -- for details click here.

DeSantis vs. Disney

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dynogator, Apr 13, 2022.

  1. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,910
    846
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    You can strawman me all you want. It doesn't make it an argument I made.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. jjgator55

    jjgator55 VIP Member

    6,198
    1,765
    2,043
    Apr 3, 2007
    You mean like Paris, France? They have an actual winter there. How about Mexico? People vacation there all the time.
     
  3. dynogator

    dynogator VIP Member

    6,373
    318
    418
    Apr 9, 2007
    Do you honestly think Disney's going to shut down their billion dollar operation and relocate? Disney World isn't exactly a movable feast. The politicians are going to bloviate, Disney seems to be keeping it's head down, and I highly doubt anything substantive will result. DeSantis will have his headlines, and he'll move on to the next inflammatory non-problem.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  4. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,584
    2,830
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Disney World isn’t moving. But they have a creative work force, heavily overrepresented by the LGBTQ community, that has gotten accustomed to be viewed as equal and accepted. They demanded Chapek stand up for their humanity in the face of this statement of state sponsored bigotry. DeSantis may consider cowing Disney as a sufficient victory, but his base may require some form of symbolic sacrifice of employee rights or exercise of casual rhetorical cruelty to satiate their cultural bloodlust further. That will really put Chapek in a bind.
     
  5. AndyGator

    AndyGator VIP Member

    3,598
    352
    338
    Apr 10, 2007
    Weaponizing government. What can go wrong? :rolleyes:
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    5,195
    450
    293
    Jun 1, 2007
    So does anyone think there won't be a renegotiation of their 50 year old tax status upcoming?
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2022
  7. g8rjd

    g8rjd GC Hall of Fame

    7,743
    648
    1,193
    Jan 20, 2008
    Tallahassee, FL
    No, you didn’t. That case is a finding that an administrative agency acted outside its statutory mandate from Congress. It’s not a constitutional ruling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,910
    846
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Which means that agency, which is part of the Executive Branch, acted outside the authority granted to it under Article II of the Constitution. It enacted a policy which only Congress may enact under Article I of the Constitution.

    Let me ask you this, what is the highest American legal authority that restricts Executive Branch entities from enacting policy?
     
  9. g8rjd

    g8rjd GC Hall of Fame

    7,743
    648
    1,193
    Jan 20, 2008
    Tallahassee, FL
    I understand your point, but almost every case, particularly in administrative law, can be brought back to the constitution in some way or another. However, the question was what Congress delegates in the enabling act and whether the agency’s action fell within it. It’s not *really* a constitutional inquiry. The Court is not interpreting an Article I or Article II power (and no, it’s not that Article II *can’t* if delegated the power by Congress; it’s about what authority Congress extended to the agency). It’s an interpretation of the enabling act.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,910
    846
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Which means the issue as analyzed by the Court is generally decided by case law, but the reason it ultimately fails is because of the lack of authority granted to it under the Constitution.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  11. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,696
    1,625
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,290
    366
    1,993
    Jun 14, 2014
    That's not a particularly meaningful insight, as the federal government can only act as authorized by the constitution.

    Cases resolved on statutory grounds are not constitutional questions, they're statutory questions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  13. jjgator55

    jjgator55 VIP Member

    6,198
    1,765
    2,043
    Apr 3, 2007
    They already pay a lot in state and local taxes. Seems the only thing DeSantis did was raise the taxes in Orange and Osceola counties. His next step will be to say the counties can’t raise taxes to pay for the extra services which will spread the fire districts and cops too thin to be effective. With each step republicans make things worse on everyone.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    17,335
    5,906
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    29,932
    1,867
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
  16. jjgator55

    jjgator55 VIP Member

    6,198
    1,765
    2,043
    Apr 3, 2007
    The problem with that is the USSC has already granted citizen status to corporations via Citizens United, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Something about free speech.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    3,756
    808
    2,088
    Apr 24, 2007
    Bingo!! Although Disney today, as we have seen in videos and like CNN, has let their ideology overrun their business acumen for several years now. If it hasn’t already, it will change soon enough, just like we’re already seeing at CNN.

    Disney was too stupid to realize that their Reedy Creek Cash Machine was a grantee exception to law and that it came with conditions. Losing that status changes almost the entire business model of WDW. Not only do they not pay taxes, they have the ability to tax other companies operating in Reedy Creek. Soon their will be Orange and Osceola County Inspectors on property instead of their own, and every new square foot of concrete or drainage ditch will have to go through permitting in those counties.

    Disney broke the Golden Rule of business: they got political. Unless you are sure that all of your customers have been, are, and always will be in agreement with a particular political position it is always best to stay neutral.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 5
    • Agree Agree x 3
  18. dynogator

    dynogator VIP Member

    6,373
    318
    418
    Apr 9, 2007
    From the lone Republican who voted against the bill:

    The unraveling of Reedy Creek would not begin until June 2023.

    “This leaves the sword of Damocles over Disney’s head for 13 months. It shuts them up,” Florida state Sen. Jeff Brandes (R) said. “Nobody actually thinks this is going to happen. The cost to the state would be astronomical, potentially billions of dollars.”

    Brandes was the lone Republican to vote against the bill, joining every Democrat in the Senate. He said DeSantis, who is up for reelection this year and is a potential presidential candidate in 2024, is relishing the feud.

    This isn’t even really about Disney,” Brandes said. “This is about staying on Fox. This is about extending the media life of this storyline. This is gold for him.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ances-bill-revoke-disneys-special-tax-status/
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    18,295
    1,570
    1,308
    Aug 24, 2009
    Ocala
    LOL...

    I had no clue Disney had some set up with these advantages. But if they want to keep pushing on with taking on a Parental Rights Bill the way they are...it will continue the way it is going. Because they are on the wrong side of the Bill.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  20. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    29,932
    1,867
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    Didnt they break that (non-existent) rule and "get political" by lobbying the state for special favors and donating to state Republicans in the first place? They simply bit the hand that feeds them.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1