Breakdown of the Florida counter suit against Disney. Absolute destruction

quote:

---

Because of the commerce clause, and Disney being headquartered in Cali

---

quote:

---

I remember in here all the people thinking Disney was clowning DeSantis and the Florida legislature with the last minute legal stunt, when all they were really doing was buying themselves a world of legal trouble

---

quote:

---

quote:
The commerce clause is not even a part of the lawsuit .., sheesh.. do better

Dear Lord, son. Dont post your guesses. When commerce has been suppressed by govt, as is being claimed by Disney, and that commerce is between states, Fla vs a Cali corporation, then the feds will have the final say
quote:
Disney sues Ron DeSantis, alleging he "targeted" the company for political reasons

Its in the Constitution
quote:
The Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce and restricts states from impairing interstate commerce.

Disney knows this. Obviously Ron hasnt read the Constitution all the way thru

---

quote:

---

first, desantis didnt do anything to Disney, and neither did the state legislature. The passed a law that updated and reformed a state sanctioned special district, which is expressly not Disney. In fact, in all the bonds that were issues for reedy creek it expressley stated that reedy creek is not Disney, and if it turns out that it really was just a front for Disney then disney is guilty of a billion dollars of securities fraud. Disney's federal case requires them to have standing as an injured party, which they cant really have unless they were really sysnonomous with reedy creek, but if they were synonomous with reedy creek they are guilty of financial crimes and fraud. they are not in a good spot. and the fact that when they were doing their shenanigans to try and get around the legislature they were extremely sloppy and didnt pay attention to the statutes governing what they were dealing with, they have basically guaranteed that they will lose the state of Florida lawsuit, which will nullify the land development deal they signed and thus remove any standing they possibly could have had in the federal case. maybe watch the actual video

---

quote:

---

There was a chance the two lawsuits would run simultaneously in state and federal court, where Disney sued DeSantis and the board, said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a professor at University of North Carolina School of Law.

One possible outcome would be for the first case to reach a resolution that then might then be applied in the other court, said Papandrea.

---

quote:

---

Clay Calvert, a law professor at the University of Florida specializing in the First Amendment said "DeSantis might have been his own worst enemy by speaking out" and providing Disney fodder to prove its claim. DeSantis said state officials were “certainly not going to bend a knee to woke executives in California," which undermines his counter suit in state court.

---

quote:

---

Jacob Schumer, a land-use and local government attorney in Florida who has been following the dispute, said Disney has the stronger case. The state’s argument that Disney’s control over the land around its developments is illegitimate because it represents a corporate usurpation of government powers aren't based on precedent.

“These agreements are pretty standard when it comes to developments in Florida,” Schumer said. “They are not out of the ordinary in the kinds of things they do.”

---

quote:

---

Dear Lord, son.

---

quote:

---

I think you make about 10 to 15 idiomatic post every single day and it is depressing to watch.

As stated directly above to the other ignorant poster Reedy Creek is a special district created under Florida law and it was eliminated by the legislature under Florida law. Disney is now contained and controlled by the new district pursuant to current Florida law

The commerce clause involves shipping across state lines of a product simply because Disney is a corporation with a principal office in California does not make the shipment of goods under the commerce clause . Disney is a registered out of state Florida corporation doing business in Florida and subject to the laws of Florida.

---

quote:

---

Disney's lawsuit was filed in federal court and alleges that DeSantis violated the company's protections under the U.S. Constitution, including its First Amendment right to free speech.

---

quote:

---

The prohibition implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Of particular importance is the prevention of protectionist state policies that favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state. For example, in West Lynn Creamery Inc. v. Healy the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts state tax on milk products because the tax impeded interstate commercial activity by discriminating against non-Massachusetts citizens and businesses.

---

quote:

---

Legal doctrines hold that federal judges should refrain from hearing a case where there is a related state court proceeding, particularly when a state court decision could resolve the federal lawsuit. Judge Walker will still allow Disney's federal lawsuit to proceed because the company is claiming a major Constitutional violation, which is the kind of claim a federal, not state court would make a ruling on.

---