I am not always a big fan of Ian Millhiser, who writes about legal issues for Vox. He tends to sound the alarm over practically every Supreme Court decision, declaring it not just obviously wrong but perhaps the most dangerous ruling this century. After a while you tend to shut out this kind of thing.
But God knows he's right about the way Florida has treated Disney over Disney's opposition to its "Don't Say Gay" law. By explicitly punishing Disney for its public opinion, it is using official state power to crush free speech:
This isn’t a close case.
At the urging of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Florida legislature voted this week to punish one of the world’s biggest producers of entertainment and pop culture, because DeSantis and his fellow Florida Republicans disagreed with that producer’s First Amendment-protected speech. DeSantis signed the bill into law on Friday.
Florida’s decision to strip a government benefit from Disney because, in DeSantis’s words, Disney expressed “woke” opinions and “tried to attack me to advance their woke agenda,” is unconstitutional. And it’s not a close case.
As the Supreme Court said in Hartman v. Moore (2006), “official reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right.’” Nor does it matter how the government retaliates against a person or business who expresses an opinion that the government does not like — any official retaliation against someone because they engaged in First Amendment-protected speech is unconstitutional.
Oddly enough, this is a case where I think Millhiser is being too cool headed. This is an exceptionally dangerous action by DeSantis and the Florida legislature and I hope Disney fights it in court. It should certainly be an easy victory. Even a stone conservative Trump appointed judge should rule Florida's action illegal with barely a second thought.
The response of the conservative community, as usual, has been disappointing. There have been a few conservatives who oppose DeSantis's action, but their opposition has mostly been pretty tepid. Meanwhile, most conservatives have stayed quiet in hopes of avoiding having to take any stand at all.
This is mind boggling no matter what you think of the Florida law and no matter what you think of Disney's public response. A state has used its official power to take revenge against a company that expressed an opinion it disliked. It's flabbergasting. It's the behavior of an autocrat. It's blatantly illegal. Ron DeSantis ought to be in prison for abuse of power over his role in all this.
The fact that this is getting so little attention baffles me. Am I one of the few who understands just how bad this is? Or am I wrong and this isn't really a big deal? Someone please help me out.
Dear Kevin,
You are 100% right about this one; it's a disaster.
Two quibbles, though:
(1) Have you considered that you might be underestimating some of the other extremely destructive rulings on topics that Millhiser might be more deeply engaged with than you are (e.g. recent evisceration of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Brnovich, etc.)? It's true that journalism pressures journalists to turn everything up a couple of notches, but sometimes a Supreme Court is really that much of an outlier in awfulness, across lots of areas of law, and this is one of those times.
(2) I wish I shared your confidence that any Trump judge would go ahead and slap down this behavior, but that seems to me misplaced. The partisanization of the Republican judiciary is if anything an underplayed story, and this kind of "should be a really easy case" kind of case is often a hard case for partisan hard-right judges today. So we'll see.
It is nice and comfy being a frog in this nice warm water. But at regular intervals mean boring old Ian Millhiser comes along to tell me that the water is continuously getting hotter. "THEY ARE BOILING YOU," he tediously yells. After a while you tend to shut out this kind of thing.
Disney will no doubt fight it up to the Supreme Court if necessary, and I think the Supremes will rule in Disney's favor. It might not be unanimous (which would itself merit scorching condemnation), but we are after all talking about the rights of a corporation here.
I don’t think Disney is going to fight this. Aside from anything else, there’s an interesting and very thorny issue with the “business judgement rule”. Corporations are required to act in the shareholders best interest but courts give enormous deference to the exercise of the board’s judgement about what’s really best for the business.
This would arguably represent an extreme example. A billion dollar gift from Florida plus cost savings of $140 million annually versus being nice to some gay and transgender employees. My guess is that Disney’s management is just going to sit this one out.
If the present arrangement is so disadvantageous for Disney, why haven't they tried to change it themselves before now?
Myself, I suspect Disney doesn't trust the competence or capacity of the local governments to keep its giant money machine supplied with water, electricity, and so forth. They prefer to be as self-sufficient as possible. It's the attitude of a company taking the long view, which is rare these days but hardly unheard-of.
That said, it's true they probably won't fight this in court immediately. It's a lot quicker to highlight the immense costs to the local governments and the state of Florida and see if the legislature starts to have second thoughts.
The present arrangement isn't horrible. But the new one is (at least financially) ridiculously great for them. Disney pays the special taxing district hundreds of millions a year in self-imposed taxes. And the district has significant obligations, mainly pensions for the firefighters and other employees it employs. Who picks up the tab for all of that when the special district goes away. Note that Florida law is very stingy about imposing new taxes. And of course it's illegal to impose a new tax on one specific business in a county, so they can't just say, "Disney will have to keep paying into a county-wide fund." Instead, they'll have to tax everyone in the counties.
I'm sure you're right about why Disney preferred the status quo ante in the first place. The immediate problem for Disney's executives is to defend the retention of those intangible benefits of self-sufficiency instead of a now very quantifiable $1 billion gift from Florida, followed by an ongoing gift of about $140 million annually.
The other point is the Disney's certainly gotten the message about crossing Republican politicians. The costs to taxpayers are not really relevant politically in Florida since there's no organized opposition party and the Republicans have consolidated power in ways (gerrymandering, control of the courts, etc) that make losing elections almost impossible regardless of what the majority of people in Florida want or how they vote.
The far bigger issue, and the one that might persuade the company to fight this, is the permitting issue. Right now, because of Reddy Creek, Disney isn't required to get local permitting which speeds development.
I don't believe Orange County would intentionally delay the process, but currently it's a competitive advantage that the company has over other theme park operators like Seaworld and Universal.
I can’t imagine that the incremental and probably very minor inconvenience of having to ask a bunch of local politicos that they almost certainly already own for permission to do stuff could possibly outweigh receiving an immediate $1 billion dollar gift and at least $140 million annually in perpetuity.
I’m sure there are tax angles and other scams that made the status quo ante worthwhile for Disney. But a billion dollars going straight to the bottom line is going to be pretty hard to walk away from.
if disney fights the reedy creek dissolution and wins, it won't have any impact on the don't say gay law that instigated this mess. being nice to gay and trans employees has nothing to do with its decision one way or another.
i have no idea what disney is going to do. you're right about the windfall disney will receive as a result of this. however, the other side of the issue is the precedence the law sets and the first amendment rights of the corporation. there is also the possibility that desantis and the legislature will revise the law to put the financial burdens back on disney while eliminating the benefits it enjoyed through control of reedy creek. disney would find itself in a worse position financially.
I think Disney's executives would be hard pressed to tell their shareholders that they've sued to return an immediate gift of $1 billion and a perpetual gift of $140 million annually in the interests of something like the first amendment rights of corporations. Especially since what they own is immovable and very vulnerable to state power.
On the other hand, if the Republican Party can find a way to shift the billion dollars back to Disney through some underhanded and scary way, that might put executives in an awkward position—they might have to fight but it's not clear that they could win. There would need to be a viable opposition party to support, which there isn't. And Disney would need to know that if they funded an opposition party that the (1) the status quo ante would be restored and that (2) there would be powerful, devastating reprisals against the Republicans to deter future aggression—which, again, would required and organized, committed, utterly ruthless opposition party which does not exist and (like previous color revolutions) likely would take decades to organize.
Unless the Reedy Creek bond owners are paid off to the tune of a billion dollars by next year, they will sue, and they will win.
The state promised in the law creating Reedy Creek not to take away any of its powers if it still owed bond debt.
I’m a native Floridian and I what DeSantis is doing to my state is horrifying. Florida is not a deep red state, but the Republicans have systematically consolidated control of the state since Gore lost it and the election in 2000. What’s worse is he is auditioning for 2024 Presidential run and destroying the state one the process.He keeps passing legislation for problems that don’t exist while ignoring the housing crisis and rising rents.
Nailed the bigger issue. Republicans got no solutions to the real problems (climate change, hollowing middle class...) so they make up problems (election fraud, people choosing their own gender identity...)
I wouldn't say it's getting little attention. I've seen plenty of reports and commentary about it.
I imagine by the time any case got to court, DeSantis would have concocted a whole bunch of very plausible public policy reasons why it was bad for Disney to be treated more favorably than other corporations, which had absolutely nothing to do with its political views. And I imagine Trump Republican judges would sagely observe that it was not up to humble members of the judiciary to second guess the reasons state legislatures had for passing bills that were clearly within their power.
Bingo!
Same with Abbott's "truck inspections" in TX.
As for sending them to jail, the question has to be what criminal statute was violated? If groups paid him off, then is would be bribery. But just straight up abuse of power?
I’m not sure what either side would actually do but you’re probably right that the lawyers would make up reasons and the Republican judge would pretended to believe them. It’s Disney’s play that more difficult to predict.
The question is how much is the ability to have the independence which being, essentially, their own politically independent fiefdom worth to Disney in cold hard cash. Everything I’ve read suggests that Florida’s political subdivisions will assume about $1 billion in Disney’s debt and will save Disney upwards $140 million annually. That’s a lot of free money. And it’s all Disney’s if they support the GOP and toss the gays under the bus.
There’s also the problem for Disney of the business judgement rule. Intangible goodnesses versus a billion dollars of free money. My guess that Disney just stands pat and takes the money. But also gets the GOP’s message.
I think Disney wants the quality of service and infrastructure, its a key part of their brand and the experience of going to their parks. Sure it would be great to save the money and have the state pay for it, but I imagine they have zero confidence in Florida being able to continue the quality they expect.
Perhaps but a tax free gift of $1 billion upfront and a continuing gift of at least $140 million is a pretty good incentive especially since the benefits you are describing are both intangible and things that the Florida counties are legally obligated to provide.
Plus, the Republicans control the legal system so there’s nothing much that Disney can realistically do except take the money and bend the knee with a smile.
So, it's a bribe?
It’s both a threat and a bribe. It’s a reminder that Disney is at the mercy of the permanent GOP ruling party. But it’s also a reminder that, in an authoritarian state, there’s advantages to standing in good with the ruling party.
Is there a law against abuse of power?
Does abuse of power have a specific legal definition?
There were previously laws against “misfeasance and nonfeasance” but these were all rendered void by recent Supreme Court decisions. It’s no longer clear that any but the most explicit quid-pro-quo, getting a paper bag full of cash on a park bench form of bribery are still illegal.
The supposed enforcement mechanism that’s supposed to be guaranteeing against what’s happening now has always been the threat of massive, concerted, sustained retaliation by the press and the opposition party. As that threat has faded and become weaker with each push towards authoritarianism by the GOP, success within the authoritarian GOP has demanded even greater anti democratic shouting and now actions. From the Republicans perspective, it’s now simply the exercise of power against the regime’s enemies and in favor of its friends—and not an abuse of power.
This not only violates free speech, it also violates the express First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
Also, in the act that created the improvement district, the State promised creditors of the district that it would not revoke any powers of the district. So it also violates the Contract Clause.
The entire thing is patently unconstitutional in so many ways, but Republicans don’t care. They are thrilled that DeSantis, like Trump, is a “fighter,” and the dirtier the better.
..Republicans don’t care. They are thrilled that DeSantis, like Trump, is a “fighter,” and the dirtier the better.
"Thrilling" Republicans, of course, is why DeSantis is doing what's he doing. He's about as much a Tom Cotton-style "true believer" in right wing causes as my left foot is. This is pure Nixon/Atwater/Trump-style throwing red meat to the base for purposes of solidifying his position. There's a presidential primary to run in doncha know? I can't wait to see how Greg Abbott tops this.
He's about as much a Tom Cotton-style "true believer" in right wing causes as my left foot is.
I can't read minds, of course, but that's my take on DeSantis: power by any means necessary. In this case the "means" require becoming Trumpier than Trump. He's like JD Vance in that regard, but a bit less clown-like, and more Nixonian. The vibe I get is that, if this were, say, the 80s or 90s, DeSantis would a standard-issue hard right movement conservative. More or less cut from the same ideological cloth as a Mitch McConnell or Jim DeMint. (Cotton, since I mentioned him, strikes me as very clearly a dead-eyed, true-believing Bannonite America-firster).
I’m pretty sure some other Texas official has openly lobbied Disney to move their park operations to Texas, which is kinda hilarious. Of course, the real problem is that the theme parks need warm weather year-round, and California is the only blue state that provides it. Georgia might tip more reliably blue with an operation of that size, but there really aren’t any other options on the eastern side of the country. Not that it’s even remotely practical to move WDW, of course.
Aside from your analysis, which I think is fundamentally correct, Disney is learning what the Jews and the Chinese have always known, namely, that while real property has the great virtue of historically being the best method for amassing and storing wealth it also has the great downside of being the least portable thing in the world. Which makes property ownership problematic in uncertain political situations.
It's low expectations at this point. Everyone expects DeSantis to be Mini-Trump and behave in a vindictive manner, and the people who could restrain him don't.
Sorry, to add-
I agree with you that Millhiser tends to be a bit of a doomposter when it comes to Supreme Court decisions, although his book was really good. He pointed out in it that we tend to think of the Supreme Court as more progressive than it actually has been due to the brief "Warren Court" era, but the Court has actually tended to be pretty reactionary throughout US history - a strong bulwark for property-owners, businesses, and rich people.
Haha, LOLing at the year (two?) we spent having discussions about whether liberals engage in too much cancelling. Remember the theme of Trump’s big appearance at CPAC - “America Uncanceled”? America - punked again, it shoulda been. And now we’re gonna question whether conservatives have some sincere commitment to free speech? Go ahead, pull the football away from me again, please.
There’s no question that the Far Left has engaged in excessive cancellations. That’s more or less a fact; I don’t really even understand how or why someone would attempt to debate that issue (or, at the very least, engage in some form of whataboutism). The news has been one story of Leftist cancellation after another since (at least) the infamous summer of 2020.
But what Republicans are doing now, and it seems to be what you’re alluding to, is possibly even more bizarre than the over-the-top self-destructive behavior on the Far Left. The Republicans already had a strong case for the Midterms: complain about Leftist cancellations and scream about inflation. That’s pretty much all they had to do. Then they allow for some historical patterns to kick in (with the party out of the White House typically making gains in the midterms), and the Repubs had a great shot at winning both houses of Congress.
Instead, they seem to have abandoned that winning strategy and embarked on their own string of cancellations that is so extreme that they’ve managed to pull off what I thought was impossible: they’re actually starting to look like worse cancelers than the crazies on the Left who pull stunts like voting to remove President Lincoln’s name from High Schools. The Repubs have managed, to their own detriment, to at least begin turning the narrative against themselves. And, I confess, I don’t understand why they’re behaving in such a counterproductive manner.
To be clear: I’m happy to see the Repubs self-destructing (though I don’t like to see people hurt in that process). But I nevertheless can’t help but wonder what they’re thinking. Did trump convince them that there will never be any negative consequences for even the most vile behavior (even though he lost the house, the senate, and the presidency in just 4 years)? Has the Fox News bubble convinced people like DeSantis that what the public really wants is to see a politician vilify the wildly popular Walt Disney industry? Is it even simpler: are they just insane? Don’t know, but it’s a wonder to behold…
Where, in America, does the "Far Left" have even the slightest power to cancel anyone?
Exactly. The editorial board of Jacobin ain't exactly a kingmaker.
There were undergraduates at Oberlin who were angry at poorly prepared ethnic food. They were undermining everything our country stands for.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/5/20944138/oberlin-banh-mi-college-campus-diversity
They should have been expelled, & where possible, deported.
"There’s no question that the Far Left has engaged in excessive cancellations."
Please, remind me again of which Deep Blue cities or states cancelled any corporation for doing anything? There was talk about Chicago stripping the TRUMP letters off a building there, and NYC cancelled its contract with his golf courses recently, which was immediately put on hold by a judge. Amazon's HQ2 Minor was scuttled in NYC too, but HQ2 Prime in blue Arlington VA sailed through its planning process the other week. Oh, and a bunch of cities said they'd withhold approvals for new Chick-Fil-A's a decade ago, but then apparently caved because I see CFAs everywhere now.
Where are all the blue cities and states cancelling Fortune 500 corporations, equivalent to what Florida is doing with Disney, what Texas is trying to do with Citibank, etc.?
"I don’t really even understand how or why someone would attempt to debate that issue (or, at the very least, engage in some form of whataboutism)."
I’m happy to see the Repubs self-destructing (though I don’t like to see people hurt in that process). But I nevertheless can’t help but wonder what they’re thinking. Did trump convince them that there will never be any negative consequences for even the most vile behavior
You can't govern unless you win. And you can't win unless you first get the nomination. So, that's what this is about: DeSantis is trying to win over the MAGA base in preparation for a run at the White House. And doing so, for obvious reasons, requires being highly Trumpy! And yes, it's a risky* strategy, given he has to win his own reelection first in November. But (I'd guess) he's willing to make rash moves to get a leg up on the competition (Trump, Abbott, Cruz, Cotton), because, again, the road to the White House for Republicans goes through MAGAville.
(It could well be that DeSantis is not prepared to take on Trump directly if TFG decides to give it another go, so, who knows? But, maybe he is willing to take on Trump, or maybe he believes it's quite likely Trump won't be able or won't be willing to run. It would appear a number of Republicans are preparing for a 2024 presidential campaign, so DeSantis isn't alone.)
*Also, who's to say it's all that risky? I don't have access to DeSantis's internal polling, but the tea leaves suggest 2022 might well be a very bad year for the Democratic brand, so perhaps he believes he's going to win pretty handily.
Maybe he's angling for a Trump/deSantis ticket? Spare me the history of vice presidents in re the Presidency itselt; most people know it already. I admit it's a low-probability possibility.
But things are different now 🙁
They’re both from Florida, so one would have to move or they’d give up all those sweet, sweet electoral votes.
"... Or am I wrong and this isn't really a big deal? .."
It's not a big deal in that liberals have been passing laws to suppress corporate speech they don't like (such as we prefer not to hire members of group X because on average they are dumb and dishonest) for decades. However they tend be more subtle about it. The thing to do here would be to say that by vocally opposing the bill Disney was creating a hostile work environment for conservative Christians.
Big difference between setting baseline rules and direct retaliation. Liberals tend to the former, not the latter. Rules about hostile workplaces are not targeted at any place in particular.
The laws passed by liberals don’t punish racist or sexist or anti-gay corporate speech, they punish discriminatory employment practices, i.e. actual behavior. Most companies restrain bigoted talk by their leadership because they don’t want to lose customers. Because the large majority of Americans believe in equality.
"... they punish discriminatory employment practices, i.e. actual behavior. .."
Actual behavior like speech that supposedly creates a hostile work environment.
Speech is behavior, and there have always been categories of unprotected speech.
Could you please give some examples?
Crickets
Two words: outrage exhaustion.
Yes, this really is a big deal. But we've gone through 7 years now of candidate-President-ex-President T***p, and the media's judgement is completely unmoored. Add the huge input to the media take of Fox and its fellow travelers stirring shit for the lulz (well, really for the ratings) and major media is even more incapable of perspective than their already-bad long-term baseline would suggest.
Exactly this. On top of that, we are talking about the rights of a giant corporation here, which is not exactly calculated to stir the Democratic base to fury.
I think the fundamental problem here is that our politics has become so polarized that almost nobody is even talking about whether decisions and actions are good or bad *in principle*. Everything is filtered through a partisan lens, so the only question that people are asking is "is this good or bad for my party?"
The GOP has been heading down this path for a while now, but it really came to a crisis because of Trump. Trump was so awful, and the things he did and said were so indefensible, that half the nation was faced with a decision: either learn to turn a blind eye to the corruption and misbehavior within their party, or stop being Republicans. Since politics is the new religion, most chose the latter.
That shift has had consequences. On the Democrat side, liberals no longer make a distinction between arguments against the GOP on the basis of culture or values, and arguments against GOP on the basis of law and basic principles of governance. It used to be that there was a block of persuadable people that might disagree with Democrats on values, but agree on law and good governance, and so it was worth making that distinction. However, those people are now gone (see above), and the remainder will interpret any argument made by a liberal as a partisan attack, no matter what. With no audience of persuadable moderates, liberals have given up trying to have a nuanced discussion. It's all about rallying the base, and this is only one of many things that you could use to rally the base.
This is a classic example of how reasonable political discourse in this country has died.
"either learn to turn a blind eye to the corruption and misbehavior within their party, or stop being Republicans. Since politics is the new religion, most chose the latter."
I think you meant to say "the former."? A handfull of never-Trump Republicans left the party, but were more than made up for by racist or nativist working class.
It's flabbergasting. It's the behavior of an autocrat. It's blatantly illegal. Ron DeSantis ought to be in prison for abuse of power over his role in all this.The fact that this is getting so little attention baffles me. Am I one of the few who understands just how bad this is? Or am I wrong and this isn't really a big deal?
No, you're just the only one who's acting. like it's still 2015.
This is not worse (and frankly, not as bad or as "flabbergasting") as GOP operatives conspiring with state officials to create fraudulent, imposter Electoral College slates; it's not worse than Republicans trying to prevent private businesses from taking safety precautions amid a deadly pandemic; it's not worse than the President blackmailing a foreign country over demands for dirt on his opponent's son; it's not worse than a right wing news network deliberately trying to kill as many Americans as possible; it's not worse than a Republican governor using his state police to deliberately exacerbate supply chain problems and sabotage the economy.
In our dysfunctional clusterfuck of a broken polity, DeSantis's latest shenanigans are just another day at the office.
But yes, the fact that our polity is broken is a very big deal.
Don't forget kidnapping children from their parents and throwing them in cages, then losing track of which cage you put them in so that the parents cannot be reunited with their kids later. Or kidnapping people in foreign countries, charging them with being terrorists, torturing them repeatedly, dumping them in a legal black hole, eventually admitting that some-to-all of them are actually innocent of being terrorists, and keeping them imprisoned anyway for almost a quarter century and counting. Or prohibiting people from doing what they want with their own bodies, including whether or not to have a child, whether to have sex with a consenting adult of their choosing or whether to present themselves to everyone else as a specific gender... all while giving a free pass to rapists and pedophiles as long as they identify with the Right political party.
If nobody went to jail for those horrendous crimes, I fail to see why anybody would go to jail simply for deleting a set of tax and municipal services benefits for a corporation. And I also fail to see why this action would be deemed "flabbergasting" or "extremely dangerous" after all the above have already happened under previous GOP administrations.
Yes. This all goes back to Reagan and Gingrich and G. W. Bush/Dick Cheney.
Lol, they were kidnapped starting in the Bush administration and continued through the Obama era. Do you need a finger snapped Austin???? Are you a retard???
+100
+10
While I agree that the legislation is unconstitutional I'm not sure what Disney's reaction will/should be
This legislation will change all sort of things - Billion dollar things
I expect that the head honcho at Disney has a horde of bean counters all wearing out their spreadsheets trying to predict the possible outcomes
It is entirely possible that they should "fold" and run gleefully to bank their profits
Its the State of Florida that may well end up with a huge bill
It is entirely possible that they should "fold" and run gleefully to bank their profits
Not only possible, but likely. Everything I've read suggests changes in local taxation will result in higher bills for communities in Central Florida—not the Disney Corporation. There are implications in terms of reduced freedom of action wrt thed theme park. But Disney in 2022 is primarily a media and content conglomerate, not a resort company. I'm pretty sure what's gone down in Florida is just not that big a deal to Disney in terms of profits (which is their primary consideration).
All Disney did was say that it would no longer fund any politician in Florida, and the GOP turned on them like a rabid dog. Disney should respond by rescinding this policy and start funding every Democrat running anywhere in Florida. You want a fight, Republicans? Mickey can afford to cut a deal with Dems to fund all their campaigns for decades in exchange for protections against unionization at Disney properties. (If the Obama years prove anything, it's not hard to find lots of Democratic politicians who will do nothing to promote unionization, Disney's only real fear if Dems were to run Florida for any length of time.)
Gods, I would absolutely _love_ being a member of the Mickey Mouse party! And of course, I'd get to be a Mouseketeer. Please, please Somebody up there, have the Republicans try to throw us into that briar patch.
Mr DS wants to look big as he`s running for Presidunce .
+1
From JD Vance. I'm sure you've all seen this already but it's the answer to Mr. Drum's flabbergast.
"He said he thought this was pessimistic. “I tend to think that we should seize the institutions of the left,” he said. “And turn them against the left. We need like a de-Baathification program, a de-woke-ification program.”
“I think Trump is going to run again in 2024,” he said. “I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”
“And when the courts stop you,” he went on, “stand before the country, and say—” he quoted Andrew Jackson, giving a challenge to the entire constitutional order—“the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”
This is a description, essentially, of a coup."
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets
What can you do about this? They won't be stopped. No one cares enough to stop them.
Is J.D. ANTIVAXXX trying to get Donald Trump Charlesguiteau'd?
Vance is a fag. Con men elitist.
No lies detected.
Short answer is that nobody is surprised anymore by the awful ideas and actions that emanate from Republicans. You can't be outraged about everything, every day. Here's what I wonder. Can there truly be any so-called "swing voters" left who are actually winnable by one party or the other? I wouldn't vote for any Republican, whether it was for dog catcher or president. I suspect it is the same, but opposite, situation for Republican voters. The Democrats need to focus on getting out the vote no matter what--that is the only hope.
"I wouldn't vote for any Republican, whether it was for dog catcher or president. I suspect it is the same, but opposite, situation for Republican voters."
This may be true. The difference is though, most Democratic voters still have moral red lines. Like if the Democrats put a known pedophile up for election, most left leaning voters would simply abstain from voting at all. But Republicans march right into the voting booth and think "well it's really gross that he goes into the mall looking for teenage girls to fck, but I really want those lower taxes/anti-abortion judges/whatever so meh" and pull the R lever. So it's not truly "the same, but opposite, situation" for Democratic voters. The Donkey party still needs its candidates to clear some basic morality bars, like not be a rapist or not be an insurrectionist... while it's increasingly clear that the GOP does not face many (any) such contraints. None of our candidates can credibly claim "I could shoot anyone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes."
Ron Desantis is viewed as the not Trump conservative who will unite America.
I view him as the Trumpiest person not named Trump.
But a lot smarter 🙁
DeSantis may well be smarter. He was certainly a better student, and his diction and syntax are stronger (and his brain is surely healthier). But Trump has run a highly successful criminal enterprise for many, many years, and no one has laid a glove on him. And he got elected president. And still no one has laid a glove on him. And he may well end up in the White House again.
So I say judgments as to DeSantis's supposed superiority are premature.
Trump has Alzheimer's. Your post is dead. There is also Trump family trial.
Completely off topic (surely regulars are entitled to one a year!), but I was just watching Youtube, and chanced upon this fascinating, short (25 minute) film on Thomas Midgley, an American chemist. Did you know the same man who was responsible for adding lead to gasoline ALSO invented the chemical class that nearly destroyed the ozone layer? The dude is likely responsible for the deaths of 100 million humans (mostly due to heart disease, which is a direct byproduct of environmental lead), as well as all that extra crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA&ab_channel=Veritasium
I'm going to tell Chinese friends about this, so they have a plausible comeback to insults involving Chairman Mao!
Thomas probably has a corner window suite at the Trump Tower Midtown Hades.
It's just such a crazy story. The same corporate researcher is largely responsible for both the huge hole in the ozone AND the environmental lead catastrophe. Hollywood couldn't make it up. Midgley himself developed lead poisoning during the R&D work he performed.The video is also pretty enlightening in that it states (this was news to me) there was heated opposition to the introduction of leaded gasoline from the very beginning: stern warnings from top scientists at places like Harvard and Yale warning that this would be a public health disaster (back in the 1920s). Indeed no less a figure than Ben Franklin was warning about the dangers of lead poisoning back in the 18th century.
The book and PBS special "The Poisoner's Handbook" have a pretty thorough look at the early opposition.
+1
Just to add to the crazyness: he died by getting tangled in a rope-and-pulley system he designed so he could get himself out of bed without help. (He was partly paralyzed due to polio.)
Mixed feelings. Should corporations have free speech rights?
Only the Republican leaning one's.
Should corporations have free speech rights?
I personally find this line of reasoning somewhat beside the point, and it's one (of the very few) political topics on which I find myself occasionally sympathizing with conservatives: a plain reading of the text of the first amendment shows it to be a simple, straightforward restraint on the powers of the government. Congress shall make no law...
It's stating, in other words: "Here's a thing the government isn't allowed to do."
So, Florida's government isn't allowed to use its immense police power to constrict speech in the way it has just done. Full stop. No "individual exercise of rights" needs to be present, in my view. (Although such individual rights are indeed present here, in that the executives who wrote or approved the sentiments that angered DeSantis don't cease to be citizens in possession of civil rights simply because they're at work.)
What you say is right. The problem is that laws generally and the constitution specifically are not self enforcing. They are essentially social norms.
As I’ve been endlessly repeating, you don’t have to be a “game theory” person to understand that if norms can be violated without consequences, they will be violated. There’s no opposition party to make the Republicans pay a price. There’s no reprisals that will leave Republicans worse off. If whenever Republicans “go low”, Democrats go “high” and never retaliate but always allow Republicans to keep the benefits of their norm violating, there’s no reason for Republicans no to keep pushing towards authoritarianism.
Yep. I expect there's zero way to "punish" DeSantis for this. Only a court ruling striking down the act against Disney. And this, of course, isn't something DeSantis would mind one bit. I strongly suspect he hopes a "liberal" court ruling is yet another thing he can run against.
(Also, I note you believe Disney probably won't pursue legal remedies, and I agree; I wonder, though, if an employee or a municipality taking a financial hit might have standing.)
This is the conundrum which we are confronting. There is actually an obvious way to punish DeSantis. The traditionally assumed response to violations of norms is some form of retaliations such as, in this case, by Democrats doing the same in blue states. And because the blue states are vastly more populous and contain the overwhelming majority of the country’s economic production, the retaliation would be devastating (presumably so much so that DeSantis would himself be ostracized ).
Again, as with theories such as “Mutually Assured Destruction” the concomitant assumption is that no-one would be insane enough to test whether the other side is sufficiently resolute as to follow through on the natural reprisal. It’s also likely that, once having gone down the actual “tit-for-tat” reprisals, there’s probably no way bace to the state of equilibrium that was disrupted. So, essentially, the first move by Republicans towards one-party authoritarian rule that doesn’t have even a minor electoral consequence (and our bizarre system of apportionment of political power by land mass and/or artificial political boundaries practically guaranteed that), has created a situation whereby there’s a binary choice between ruling and being ruled.
At this point, I don't really see a bright future or even a way back to a more moderate past. Whether people like it or not, the consistent failure to retaliate by Democrats is a very big part of the reason why we're in this horrible situation today.
I know the "should've stopped Hitler at Munich" is not really correct (or realistic given the weakness of England and France) but it is fair to say that they should've stopped Newt when he redistricted out of sequence and with a thumb on the scales. If the Democrats had instantly retaliated by redistricting the GOP as close to death as possible, we wouldn't be in this horrible place today. That norm would've been more or less restored and the GOP would thereafter be far less inclined to violate norms in the future.
The conundrum you refer to is that one side believes in fair play and one doesn't. Both sides abandoning fair play is not an acceptable outcome for the side that believes in fair play. It's hard to see how continued coexistence is possible.
If this case comes up properly, it will be the Reedy Creek bond owners suing the state, because the state promised in the law creating the improvement district that the state would not take away any Reedy Creek powers so long as it had bonded debt.
The Court won’t be faced with squishy First Amendment issues, it will have institutional investors pointing to the Contract Clause and arguing that a state cannot rip off investors.
And it will be an open and shut case. And every conservative judge will come down on the side of the investors rather than the state that tried to rip them off.
Antiwokista Kevin Drum is angered by Antiwokista Ron de Santis being too antiwoke?
Let them fight.
Desantis is woke.
I say he doesn't go antiwoke far enough.
I meant to say he doesn't take not being antiwoke far enough. Old joke and I flubbed the line.
Thinking anything is or is not constitutional these days is pure speculation. This right-wing Supreme Court (and the 11th Circuit, the appeals court where any challenge would end up) are outcome-driven and political to the extreme. I'm sure that, despite DeathSantis's statements, the legislature larded the record with "objective reasons" to strip Disney of its special status. So whatever way these two courts want to go, for whatever reasons, they can and will. Either way, however, the decisions won't be about discerning an objective view of "the law." The decisions will be based on these right-wing judges/justices' assessment of what rationale gives them more flexibility to hurt democrats and progressive interests in future cases.
The reason that no one cares about this is because most people don't really like the Disney corporation. Sure, they may like some of the films, or characters, or have enjoyed a park, but they don't like the corporation behind it all Americans of all political persuasions dislike large corporations, and Disney is super huge, and pretty greedy.
Many people also mistakenly believe that the special tax status stops Disney from paying their "fair share" of taxes. That makes this feel like rough justice, not government abuse of the constitution.
The victim in this case is not very appealing. So while the principle involved is of the utmost importance, the details of the case are destroying public interest.
But also the “victim” is loosing something corruptly won and being very generously compensated for being a GOP punching bag.
Why just stop with Disney??? It's virtual signaling.
All I'm going to say is that any "free speech" argument Hobby Lobby or any anti-homosexual baker had to make is now moot point. No one on the far Left or Right gives a damn about First Amendment.
The problem with woke, it's not far left, it's far right. General obsession over the individual usual is. The paradox you misunderstood.
DeSantis in prison? I would settle for him being out of office.
But good luck with that. We may have to wait until Florida disappears under the ocean.
What freedom of speech? Doesn't every conservative agree that corporations are not people and so do not have that right?
Until the Supreme Court gave corps. 1a rights out of thin air, no one cared. Corps. are a legal fiction that had rights, historically speaking, that were only as much as the law creating them gave. No one seriously considered them akin to a human being.
DeSantis is a colored boy. Who loves virtual signaling which essentially is a woke thing. Like most elitists, they can't tell the difference.
I think it HAS been getting attention, at least in the more leftish websites. RW outlets are ignoring it on the theory it will just vanish or be consumed by some other large story.
But I also think part of the lack of sound and fury is because this whole issue is so, well, unsurprising given de Santis in particular. Remember, this is the guy who retaliated against a public official who was doing accurate documenting of pandemic statistics, who fired her, and then who had her arrested and searched when she continued to document accurate statistics from outside an official job. And then concocted reasons why this was reasonable, reasons that had nothing to do with what he had said before he had to do the concocting. Surprise over Disney would be like expressing surprise that my friend who had several DUI's had been arrested or driving drunk once again.
But outrageous? Absolutely! And doesn't he have his own police force now? King Ron has an awful lot of power. And it looks like there is nobody official in FL who has any kind of check or balance against him.
Problem is he started something that could spiral out of control against Republican party interests. Not a smart man. A man, who's own sexuality is questionable.
Oh, if only we could have confidence that they would spiral back! But that's part of the reason R's are so, so desperate to make sure no D victory is ever possible. They actually *know* of the hypocrisy, the one-sidedness, or their tactics, despite their pleas of innocence or forgetfulness. (I'm looking at you, MTG,) But they figure that if they can seal up raw power so that it never has the chance to blow back at them, then it really doesn't matter in the end. It is absolutely the "Blurred Lines" of politics!
Problem is, that once the political accountability is gone, so is any accountability regarding corruption, emoluments, kickbacks, nepotism, favoritism, and just plain bad policy. If the opposition can never be loyal, then there is no check, no balance. So we end up with a government that acts a whole lot lie Bill Murray in the "I can do whatever I want" portion o Groundhog Day, only with actual painful consequences. And if you look at Russian efficiency right now, you can see where that goes.
Lock him up!
It's tricky because Disney has a special sweetheart deal; it's not like they are being made worse off than the average company, they're just being moved from special to average.
So, leaving aside the government punishing opposition issue,
on the one hand
- do you deplore the unconditional change of the terms of a contract OR
- do you see this as finally closing down corruption from the past that should never have been allowed to happen?
I suspect at least some of the muted response is because of these various issues. Many people dislike the circumstances that finally got the Florida "government" (executive or legislative) to do this, but many fewer are upset at the actual outcome.
In a perfect world, of course, the anti-Disney aspects would go away, and the legislative would put together some sort of anti-corruption bill that would shut down a largish number of these sweetheart deals, with Disney as just one of the elements. I *suspect* this might be at least in part why some of the more far-sighted are not complaining; their hope is the long-term game is
- Disney appeals
- court rules for Disney
- FL govt is sufficiently angry and embarrassed that they would rather take the wrath of the additional sweetheart deals they shut down that do nothing
- everybody (except for a few corrupt corporations) wins.
Maybe there's a silver lining, if Disney can't have a personal opinion, so much for corporate personhood, right?
Disney can have whatever opinion it wants as long as it's willing to pay the price for having it. Just as anyone in Putin's Russia can have whatever opinion he or she wants provided they are willing to suffer and perhaps die. And, once his restored to power, that will be the choice for Americans, too. That's the nature of authoritarian regimes.
Well except not much happened to Disney. Much like the Nazis birthed from the left hegelian movement much like Bolsheviks did. Losing special status means it can happen to anybody.