Disney scraps plans for new Florida campus, mass employee relocation amid DeSantis feud

you are wasting your time. He'll literally keep saying the same thing over & over & over & over....."taking away a privilege is a consequence of free speech, not a punishment" X infinity.

well, that & he might post pics of his family for some reason.

 

What is all this drivel lol.

No I am not a lawyer. I have not gone to law school.

But Disney Disney was being treated differently than others with special privileges. Now they might lose those special privileges. That is not a first amendment issue lol!

 

Calls a poster a moron, then dismisses the obvious insult as just an observation. My observation: You’ve completely failed to offer any coherent argument here, constantly after getting owned. Perhaps a case of masochism - just an observation.

 

LOL. She said start with Dartmouth v Woodward. After that, she has another one ready for you. LOL!

Any JD's on here that can explain the case law to us. Please.

For the record, she refused to explain it to me. She said go learn something. Not going to do my work for me. Explains much of our upbringing.

 

How could you with all the time you've devoted to becoming an expert in virology.

 

Here's mine:

If it was so obvious that I've lost, ya'll wouldn't feel the need to constantly broadcast that out. Your posts would speak for themself.

The fact that it's pretty much me and maybe two other guys on this thread against the entire board and you still need that kind of validation is kind of pathetic.

 

And now

Manifestly evident. You spit nonsense like a King Cobra with a tablet.

 

Wicked….

 

But apparently the government gave women the right to make their own decisions in regards to their own bodies 50 years ago.

You shouldn't have the right to own a gun if you are mentally unstable. Taking away a woman's right to her own healthcare is paramount to taking away every gun in America. The wording of the second amendment needs to be looked at.

Slippery slope my friend, slippery slope.

 

Cute. Par for the course. Can’t argue. Another ad hominem.

 

Another cute ad hominem from a poster who can’t argue the topic. Sad. But or for the course.

 

There was not even a place to start to fix that utter confusion of concepts. It was laughably bad, especially when you had the (redacted) to be questioning someone else's understanding it.

 

The excuse…

…when you cannot argued the topic.

 

I see (via incognito) that Q has joined 715 on this thread. This begs the age-old question... can you derail the same train twice?

 

The government also once said that slaves were property and people had a right to their property. It also said that separate is equal. If stare decisis was absolute, Brown v. Board of Education would have been incorrectly decided.

And again, it's not the same. One involves a good right that has already been decided with good law. The other involves a bad "right" that was decided in a poor case.

Anybody can look through Supreme Court case law in American history and will find decisions that they think are vile and should be overturned. Both sides understand stare decisis is not absolute. The question is which cases should receive such a benefit. And I have little doubt that if the Supreme Court had a liberal majority, they would overturn Heller, a gun rights case. So aside from being the correct decision to overturn Roe (and that's all judges should care about), preserving Roe would not have stopped a liberal court from overturning Heller anyways despite stare decisis. At the Supreme Court level, you don't have to let one incredibly poorly decided case soil the well of all future cases on that issue, and both sides understand this.

 

Good points, but I will point out what I think is the distinguishing factor here. Overturning Roe was not, in practice, a steady judicial check back to the Constitution. It was the product of rightwing Supreme Court packing where a President (really, McConnel) was able to place 3 Justices in a short time, and each of those judges was handpicked because of the absolute certainty of how they would rule on Roe. The decision was far less judiciary than it was political. Our judiciary is supposed to be apolitical, something needed to maintain the checks and balances. Instead, due to fortuitous events, our judiciary is an extended arm of what some would argue an extreme Republican agenda.

That’s not a good thing, in my opinion, for the long term viability of our Country.

 

The justices did their job.

I would agree that without the three Trump picks it doesn't happen, but that doesn't mean they're bad justices or that they were wrong. They were absolutely correct.

If your issue is that the justices aren't in the middle, blame Harry Reid. Without eliminating the filibuster, the Senate would've required more votes and they likely would've had to go with someone else, more like a "shot in the dark" pick that is credentialed but you don't know exactly what they're going to do.

Which ironically is something Democrats seem to get this pass for. Democrats will straight up go into the barrel of activist groups for some of their judges and/or will ask them straight up how they will rule on certain cases. In my opinion, they're not wrong, but if we're supposed to pick judges based on credentials and not desired political outcomes, Democrats have consistently failed to follow this rule.

All of that said, if we had a time machine, someone should probably tell Harry Reid not to abolish the filibuster for judicial picks. Better in the long run for the country. But if Democrats are going to vote based on future judicial outcomes, Republicans on a broad level in the Senate need to start doing the same thing.

 

I did some background reading on this and no one has mentioned the most appalling thing. Florida was giving Disney $557,000,000 in tax credits to spend $1,000,000,000.

I want that deal. I will build a $500,000 house and Florida can give me me $278,500 in tax forgiveness. They should give that deal to everyone except Disney. Disney is richer than entire countries. They don't need taxpayer's money.

If Igor turned that down because he is upset with DeSantis, who will be gone soon, that's even worse. Florida was giving them over 1/2 a billion dollars and they have so much money they just say F you? I guess this feeling is what makes people Bernie bros/ Socialists.

 

I think you’re making my point — the judiciary should not be political, PERIOD. Justices should be selected based upon record, and should be NEVER be selected based on ideology. Court that is the demonstrable danger to our government, and this is true whether the Court was packed left or right!

 

What do you mean selected based on "record?"

Do you mean "how often they've been overturned," or things like "sentencing habits, and legal interpretations?" Because "legal interpretations" often times are split (almost but not quite) by party lines. So you can get a decent idea about the politics of a judge based on their legal interpretations depending on their area of law, who they clerked for, etc. It's by no means an exact science, but you can make a solid guess.

Some judges just aren't clear which side would benefit the most based on their rulings. But that doesn't mean judges should basically keep score on which outcome favors whom. It just means that is generally a systemically desirable candidate because there won't be this appearance of bias on the court and you're more likely to get unanimous support from the Senate because everyone is taking relatively the same amount of risk. But that genie came out of the bottle when the filibuster was eliminated for judicial picks, and there's no putting it back now.