Disney Checkmates DeSantis

[SgtSpiderMan]

The law as it exists today, may not be the same tomorrow IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE decides to change it.

There is nothing illegal about them doing it either. Which is where your "belief" falls apart.

Not my belief.

 

[HisArpy]

Nope. Only way that can happen is if a law is passed that affects ALL BUSINESSES equally. But again...a real lawyer would know that

'
Actually, not even close.

A law which affects construction of bridges only affects bridge construction contractors. Ditto for restaurants, air conditioning service companies, hotels, hospitals, etc.

Then there's the fact that the State can pass laws which affect individuals and individual businesses. Like for lawyers, doctors, architects, and others which cover what they can and cannot do as well as laws which require individuals to obey things like TRO's.

And of course, the State can pass laws which establish conservatorships and consent decrees against individual persons as well as individual entities.

In essence, the State has the power to control the behavior of everyone and everything within its boundaires either as a whole or individually. All it has to do is follow the legislative procedure to do it. There are limits, but those limits aren't applicable here (ie constitutional rights).

Additionally, the State also has the power to exempt anyone or any entity from the laws. Here in California we have gun laws which specifically exempt law enforcement. So the State can pass a blanket law and then exempt whoever and whatever they wish from being covered by the law. These exemption can be found in trespass laws where law enforcement is not trespassing when they come to the door and knock. Advertisement delivery and sales solicitors aren't trespassing. Nor are the phone company people, the electric meter readers, the mailman, and many many more.

Here, Florida has chosen to remove Disney's exemption from the applicable laws while not doing so for other entertainment businesses. This is within the powers of the State so long as the legislative process is followed, as was done in the Disney case.

 

[HisArpy]

Not my belief.

Then why do you keep reiterating it as if it were?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Then why do you keep reiterating it as if it were?

I haven’t been.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

'
Actually, not even close.

A law which affects construction of bridges only affects bridge construction contractors. Ditto for restaurants, air conditioning service companies, hotels, hospitals, etc.

Then there's the fact that the State can pass laws which affect individuals and individual businesses. Like for lawyers, doctors, architects, and others which cover what they can and cannot do as well as laws which require individuals to obey things like TRO's.

And of course, the State can pass laws which establish conservatorships and consent decrees against individual persons as well as individual entities.

In essence, the State has the power to control the behavior of everyone and everything within its boundaires either as a whole or individually. All it has to do is follow the legislative procedure to do it. There are limits, but those limits aren't applicable here (ie constitutional rights).

Additionally, the State also has the power to exempt anyone or any entity from the laws. Here in California we have gun laws which specifically exempt law enforcement. So the State can pass a blanket law and then exempt whoever and whatever they wish from being covered by the law. These exemption can be found in trespass laws where law enforcement is not trespassing when they come to the door and knock. Advertisement delivery and sales solicitors aren't trespassing. Nor are the phone company people, the electric meter readers, the mailman, and many many more.

Here, Florida has chosen to remove Disney's exemption from the applicable laws while not doing so for other entertainment businesses. This is within the powers of the State so long as the legislative process is followed, as was done in the Disney case.

But none of that is what happened in this example and it isn’t true. The state can’t control what religion someone is, the state can’t control what media outlets say, and it can’t control what people say or how they express themselves (except in situations where that speech would harm people).

Do you have any case law at all to back up any of your claims?

 

[HisArpy]

But none of that is what happened in this example and it isn’t true. The state can’t control what religion someone is, the state can’t control what media outlets say, and it can’t control what people say or how they express themselves (except in situations where that speech would harm people).

Do you have any case law at all to back up any of your claims?

Google Terri Shaivo.

The State eventually lost that legal battle. Not because they didn't have the power to enact the laws protecting her, but because they couldn't prove the underlying basis that she was still alive to a sufficient standard.

Think about that, the State of Florida had the power to pass legislation aimed toward a single individual and only toward that individual. If they can do that, then they can do it against Disney.

 

[HisArpy]

I haven’t been.

Untrue.

You assert that the State doesn't have the ability to do what it's doing despite me showing you that it does. This shows either you believe the State doesn't have that power, despite the evidence to the contrary, or you make the assertions merely for the sake of stirring controversy with no care as to what harm you cause by it.

I merely picked one of those possibilities. If I chose incorrectly, then that only leaves the other.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Google Terri Shaivo.

The State eventually lost that legal battle. Not because they didn't have the power to enact the laws protecting her, but because they couldn't prove the underlying basis that she was still alive to a sufficient standard.

That’s super, but that has nothing to do with the issue. Unless there was a legal contract there that only you know about.

 

[HisArpy]

That’s super, but that has nothing to do with the issue. Unless there was a legal contract there that only you know about.

It's not about "a contract" it's about whether the State can pass laws or not. If the State can pass laws which are an attempt to save the life of a specific individual, then they can pass laws which nullify existing contracts between parties. Especially if those contracts are between the State and a corporation.

The legal term for this is "recission by operation of law."

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It's not about "a contract" it's about whether the State can pass laws or not. If the State can pass laws which are an attempt to save the life of a specific individual, then they can pass laws which nullify existing contracts between parties. Especially if those contracts are between the State and a corporation.

The legal term for this is "recission by operation of law."

Ok, so the answer to my question was no, you don’t have any case law to support your claim.
Thanks.

 

[HisArpy]

Ok, so the answer to my question was no, you don’t have any case law to support your claim.
Thanks.

Ummm, yeah, ok you go ahead and believe what you want to believe. And, after Disney concedes and DeSantis picks up a check for his legal fees from them, I'll come back and say I told you so.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Poor Derpy. Better luck next life.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Nope. Only way that can happen is if a law is passed that affects ALL BUSINESSES equally. But again...a real lawyer would know that

There are no real lawyers posting in the PB. But you know that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Ummm, yeah, ok you go ahead and believe what you want to believe. And, after Disney concedes and DeSantis picks up a check for his legal fees from them, I'll come back and say I told you so.

LOL I think you've been on a Carbon Water bender again, come back when you've sobered up.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Ummm, yeah, ok you go ahead and believe what you want to believe. And, after Disney concedes and DeSantis picks up a check for his legal fees from them, I'll come back and say I told you so.

Again, it’s not what I believe it’s what the case law is.

 

[HisArpy]

Again, it’s not what I believe it’s what the case law is.

If you think there's case law which supports your opinion then trot her out here so we can take a look at 'er.

Otherwise all you're doing is sniping from the cheap seats.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If you think there's case law which supports your opinion then trot her out here so we can take a look at 'er.

Otherwise all you're doing is sniping from the cheap seats.

Um…the one you posted. Y’know, the one that was found to be unconstitutional.

 

[DeluxAuto]

If you think there's case law which supports your opinion then trot her out here so we can take a look at 'er.

We'd rather have a professional take a look.

 

[HisArpy]

Um…the one you posted. Y’know, the one that was found to be unconstitutional.

Lol, the Shaivo case was found unconstitutional because the State couldn't prove she was still alive.

You cannot mandate that which is impossible. If Shaivo was dead, a law will not ressurect her and maintaining her condition was a violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. THAT is why the SCOTUS ordered the Florida courts to not accept any further filings in that matter, not because the State didn't have the power to enact the law.

OTOH, the Shaivo case PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that the State can, and has, passed legislation aimed at specific individuals (let alone corporations) and such laws are presumed valid. (see eg; "Chevron Deference.")

So you got nothin'.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You're never more than a few posts away from a complete derpy meltdown.

 

[butters]

Disney's put florida and desantis on a small but important list of bad risks to do business with, the same list that determines their levels of investment in those places/people... they join the likes of russia and china

on the table are $17Billion over the next ten years in florida.
i wonder what floridians think about losing all the benefits of that potential investment

 

[HisArpy]

Disney's put florida and desantis on a small but important list of bad risks to do business with, the same list that determines their levels of investment in those places/people... they join the likes of russia and china

on the table are $17Billion over the next ten years in florida.
i wonder what floridians think about losing all the benefits of that potential investment

Is this "list" anything like the one that was created here in California which prohibited investments in and travel to those States on the list?

You know, the one that just got repealed because it was costing the government shiploads of lost profits and lower tax revenues?

 

[Rightguide]

Bless your heart.
HB1557, signed into law by "Governor" DeSantis, is colloquially known as the "Don't Say Gay" law, and no amount of gaslighting on the part of you or your "elk" can change that underlying fact.
https://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/FL Dont Say Gay KYR - Updated2022.06.pdf

Was a left wing invented lie from the git go.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Newsflash moron; the State can invalidate ANY contract at ANY time and it's PERFECTLY LEGAL for them to do so as long as they follow the legislative process.

In fact, this happens a lot more often than you and Disney would like everyone to believe it does.

How can this happen? Because the State is superior to any civil agreement.

And teh Constitution is superior to any State law.

"Perfectly Legal"? Teh United States Constitution sez differently!
No. Law. Can. Affect. Existing. Contracts.

Sound the words out. Ask for help if needed.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION CONTRACTS CLAUSE VIOLATION
(U.S. Const. art I, § 10, cl. 1, amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202)

161. Disney realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

162. CFTOD’s abrogation of the Contracts violates Disney’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 10, clause 1, known as the “Contracts Clause.” The Contracts Clause provides that “[n]o State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

163. The Contracts Clause prohibits local government entities from abrogating their own contracts with private entities. SA law that impairs a government entity’s own contracts with a private actor is especially suspect and hence subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 25-26 (1977).

164. The rights protected by the Contracts Clause are familiar to Florida law. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has pronounced the “right to contract” to be “one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by our fundamental law.”

165. The Legislative Declaration violates that most sacrosanct right and thus deprives Disney of its rights under the Contracts Clause. By declaring the Contracts void, the Legislative Declaration purports to rescind Disney’s rights and protections under contracts and to relieve CFTOD of any obligation to comply with its obligations under the Contracts or to pay damages for any breaches

You must've still been in rehab the day your unaccredited law school discussed teh Contracts Clause.

"He tries sooooo hard!"

Final Score: Downsouth 1, Purported Attorney 0

 

[DeluxAuto]

Was a left wing invented lie from the git go.

The left-wing invented a law signed by Desantis?

What?