Disney Sues Desantis

I think those strains still exist, the Koch brothers and big donors would like to see less restrictive immigration to go along with unrestricted capital movement. I wouldnt say the Democrats are pro-immigration by any means, but the decline of labor means and rise of corporate influence in the party has seen them shift to a slightly less restrictive outlook. For the most part, those parties pay lip service to activists while adopting an approach that is largely status quo, which I think monied donors can live with. E-Verify is dividing Republicans now, because adopting it would put a massive strain on the agricultural industry. When restrictions start hurting donors, then you see the fault lines.

 

Its thought for me to separate rhetoric from what is “really” happening as I don’t have much of a window into this latter situation. Certainly, they talk positively of immigration, and I assume many of the individual party members believe their words.

Indeed, I take your point about the actual effects on industry if a big source of labor suddenly dries up.

 

DeSantis board approves suing Disney in latest tug-of-war

 

I think they actually filed. Copy of the complaint here. I have not yet read

 

In one quick read, then again raise the fact that the lack of statutory required notice to all impacted property owners but they don't identify them, just saying they exist. I find that a bit suspect. They also question whether an agenda had to be posted but they don't really use that in their complaint among their accounts, so I suspect that's not that strong an argument, just for public relations consumption. The complaint is very flowery about Disneys so called fiefdom and how trying to fight the legislature and DeSantis is trying to fight the public policy of the State of Florida. I've always understood that a public policy argument has to be more deeply rooted than a simple statute.

Interesting. I look forward to reading the briefing

 

And to gator lawyer's point, they seem to look at both acts as just the continuation and there's one single act. That would seem to draw in the first action into the second. They also describe it is just dissolving Reedy Creek

 

So in other words just like every single act that DeSantis has been behind after his first year.

 

Typical political response woefully short on facts and details. But Im sure the taxpayers of Reedy Creek paid a hefty bill for that. Making Disney pay for opposition attorneys to sue Disney, DeS version of a win.

Hopefully Disney can find a way to make the board members personally liable for frivolous waste of District resources.

 

The strike has occurred. If it lasts long enough, it will ruin a lot of lives. But as it has over its nearly 100 year history, the WGA is standing against exploitation. Adam Conover breaks down the “negotiations”

 

The arguments are these: the baker never contended he didn’t have to sell a cake to a gay couple. He contended that he could not be compelled to convey a message in the cake. But this is off topic because Reedy Creek is a retaliation case.

 

DeSantis bragged about retaliating against Disney in his new book. Now, Disney is using his own words against him:

 

This is why Disney’s suit should be a slam dunk.

 

Ironically, it's the Citizens United ruling, that most on the left hated, that makes this a slam dunk.

 

for someone with such a high IQ, he isn't very smart

 

It is ironic. My conservative friends have been bashing Citizens United for the past week. So much so that there is now talk of us reading that decision. There must be something wrong with me, because I thought that would actually be an interesting exercise.

 

Wow. Just wow. I want to see Pryor at the Eleventh Circuit say that’s not valid evidence of intent, like he does with so many other direct confessions

 

Not sure about that Citizens United take, corporations always had some free speech rights, and this type of retaliatory action should have always violated the First Amendment, especially when speaking about matters of business concern, like. Concerns of your employees’ legal status. CU said corporate rights were coextensive with the rights of a natural person in terms of spending.

 

Appreciate the info. I would hope that this move would have been unlawful even before Citizens.

 

I'm not certain in my opinion without going back through the decision and the cases applying it. Certainly if I were representing Disney, I would consider citing it depending on how I thought that would look. It certainly makes the argument stronger. But I'm not sure it created it

 

Here’s an interesting analysis of Disney v DeSantis:

Will Disney Win Against DeSantis? The Florida Lawsuit Explained