zoux posted:

Mitch McConnell has a saying: "Voters don't turn out to say 'thank you'" - which is what the GOP is discovering with respect to abortion.

e: to be more clear, obviously I think that politicians should pursue outcomes they campaigned on or that support their politics, and I don't think that debt forgiveness would galvanize the right against the Dems in the way that Dobbs did the inverse, and I do think that you can get hurt by not delivering, but delivering doesn't mean those voters are going to turn out for you next time, you have to keep offering new stuff

Oracle posted:

Eh, nobody pays any attention to the VP. All the air in the room would go towards breathless 'who's he gonna pick?!' after the initial furor dies down. Bonus if they can get her to say she was bored in the VP slot and wanted to get back to the senate to do some real work.

CuddleCryptid posted:

I know the answer is free market competition but you have to wonder why the US military doesn't have its own production lines for materiel. Maybe not for every boot and bullet on the market, but for things like critical raw materials.

bobjr posted:

https://twitter.com/scottgustin/status/1651254385211523073?s=46&t=CBKJcBX0BD3U5HgUdsqBtw

Disney 2 posted:

A targeted campaign of government retaliation—orchestrated at every step by Governor DeSantis as punishment for Disney’s protected speech—now threatens Disney’s business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights.

Disney 4 posted:

Disney regrets that it has come to this. But having exhausted efforts to seek a resolution, the company is left with no choice but to file this lawsuit to protect its cast members, guests, and local development partners from a relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain state officials.

Disney 8 & 9 posted:

8. Governor DeSantis and his allies paid no mind to the governing structure that facilitated Reedy Creek's successful development until one year ago, when the Governor decided to target Disney. There is no room for disagreement about what happened here: Disney expressed its opinion on state legislation and was then punished by the State for doing so.
9. Governor DeSantis announced that Disney's statement had "crossed the line" - a line evidently separating permissible speech from intolerable speech - and launched a barrage of threats against the Company in immediate response. ... State leaders have not been subtle about their reasons for government intervention. They have proudly declared that Disney deserves this fate because of what Disney said. This is as clear a case of retaliation as this court is ever likely to see.

Disney 10 posted:

As the Florida representative who introduced the Reedy Creek dissolution bill declared to the Florida House State Affairs Committee: "You kick the hornet's nest, things come up. And I will say this: You got me on one thing, this bill does target one company. It targets the Walt Disney Company."

Disney 17 posted:

It is a clear violation of Disney’s federal constitutional rights - under the Contracts Clause, the Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the First Amendment - for the State to inflict a concerted campaign of retaliation because the Company expressed an opinion with which the government disagreed.

Disney 18 posted:

Disney finds itself in this regrettable position because it expressed a viewpoint the Governor and his allies did not like. Disney wishes that things could have been resolved a different way. But Disney also knows that it is fortunate to have the resources to take a stand against the State's retaliation - a stand smaller businesses and individuals might not be able to take when the State comes after them for expressing their own views. In America, the government cannot punish you for speaking your mind.

Disney 54 - 57 posted:

54. Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1557 into law on March 28. That day, The Walt Disney Company issued a statement expressing its views that the legislation “never should have been signed into law,” that its “goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the [L]egislature or struck down in the courts,” and that The Walt Disney Company “remains committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that.”

55. On March 29, Governor DeSantis said that he thought The Walt Disney Company’s March 28 statement had “crossed the line” and pledged “to make sure we’re fighting back” in response to Disney’s protected speech.

56. Governor DeSantis’s memoir attacked Disney’s speech and petitioning activity for expressing the wrong viewpoint. “In promising to work to repeal the bill,” he asserted, “the company was pledging a frontal assault on a duly enacted law of the State of Florida.” As a consequence of its disfavored speech and petitioning, he declared, “[t]hings got worse for Disney.”

57. The Governor promptly began his campaign of punishment.

Disney 63 posted:

When considered against the substance of the legislation, the pretext became especially transparent. The bill did nothing either to “ensure that [independent special districts] are appropriately serving the public interest” or “consider whether such independent special districts should be subject to the special law requirements of the Florida Constitution of 1968” that “prohibit[] special laws granting privileges to private corporations.” Instead, under the bill, districts created before 1968 were preemptively scheduled for dissolution before the Legislature undertook any analysis to determine whether the districts were serving the public interest, and before any determination as to whether they were subject to the special law requirements of the 1968 Florida Constitution at all. Had the Legislature undertaken that analysis, it would necessarily have found that RCID served the public interest, as the Florida Supreme Court had already confirmed, see Reedy Creek Improvement Dist., 216 So. 2d at 205-206, and further that RCID was not subject to the 1968 Florida Constitution’s prohibition on special privileges granted to private corporations, see id. (rejecting as “untenable” the claim that the Reedy Creek Enabling Act’s provisions were “oriented to serve primarily the benefit of that particular private enterprise”).

"Disney 163 posted:

163. The Contracts Clause prohibits local government entities from abrogating their own contracts with private entities.
...
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.” ... (emphasis added).
...
165. The Legislative Declaration violates that most sacrosanct right and thus deprives Disney of its rights under the Contracts Clause.
...
166. The substantial—indeed, total—impairment of Disney’s contract rights was not “necessary” to serve an “important” government interest, as required to survive Contracts Clause scrutiny. U.S. Trust, 431 U.S. at 25-26. As alleged in this Complaint, the Contracts were abrogated as part of an explicit campaign of official government retaliation against Disney for expressing a viewpoint the Governor and Legislature disagreed with. That objective is the opposite of important—it is categorically impermissible.

Disney 185 posted:

Disney’s public statements on House Bill 1557 are fully protected by the First Amendment, which applies with particular force to political speech. ... Speech such as Disney’s, on public issues and petitions to the government, “occup[y] the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment.”

Disney 186 posted:

CFTOD’s retaliatory interference with the Contracts, via the Legislative Declaration and its predicates, has chilled and continues to chill Disney’s protected speech. ... This unconstitutional chilling effect is particularly offensive here due to the clear retaliatory and punitive intent that has motivated CFTOD’s actions, at the Governor’s directive.

Disney 188-190 posted:

188. CFTOD’s actions were motivated by retaliatory intent. On April 17, Governor DeSantis warned that the CFTOD board would be meeting a few days later to “make sure Disney is held accountable.” Later that day, Governor DeSantis announced, “I look forward to the additional actions that the state control board will implement in the upcoming days.” Governor DeSantis has let no doubt be harbored as to the impetus for his punishment. He wrote in an article to promote his book, “When corporations try to use their economic power to advance a woke agenda, they become political, and not merely economic, actors. … Leaders must stand up and fight back when big corporations make the mistake, as Disney did, of using their economic might to advance apolitical agenda.”
189. There is no rational basis to invalidate the Contracts, and the purported justifications for doing so are pretextual.
190. Because the Legislative Declaration retaliates against Disney for its protected speech, Disney is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the Legislative Declaration is unconstitutional and an order enjoining Defendants from enforcing it.

tagesschau posted:

This lawsuit was filed about an hour after the last of the events it addresses occurred. I know they knew it was coming, but I still can't help but be impressed.

Youth Decay posted:

They're trying to censure Rep. Zooey Zephyr in Montana right now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZH_A3qqvRo
She's giving a great speech.

Silly Burrito posted:

Censure or formally kick out? I’ve seen both reported.

mdemone posted:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1651224614486577152?s=20

Jack Smith just got these tapes from Grossberg.

mdemone posted:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1651224614486577152?s=20

Jack Smith just got these tapes from Grossberg.

Youth Decay posted:

They're trying to censure Rep. Zooey Zephyr in Montana right now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZH_A3qqvRo
She's giving a great speech.

DarkCrawler posted:

I mean...do progressive politicians deliver to their constituencies?

CuddleCryptid posted:

I'm wondering this too. My understanding is that someone getting censured is basically just a vote to say the legislature disapproves of their actions. Which, yeah, I'm pretty sure they proved that they hate her when they refused to let her speak.

Willa Rogers posted:

I wonder what the odds are of Lemon and/or Carlson joining News Nation, where Chris Cuomo went after he was fired.

quote:

NewsNation Colleagues? Network Interested In Adding Tucker Carlson & Don Lemon To Lineup After Firings

Now that Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson were fired from their posts at CNN and Fox News, respectively, emerging cable news network NewsNation has considered bringing the unemployed anchors on board, RadarOnline.com has learned.

On Monday, it was revealed that Carlson was fired as conservative Fox's primetime anchor. Moments later, Lemon shocked CNN viewers when he took to Twitter to announce his termination.

While the rival networks were left to scramble for talent to fill the veteran anchors' seats, NewsNation looked to take advantage of the chaos.

Lemon could soon be joining fellow ousted CNN anchor Chris Cuomo if NewsNation extends an offer, RadarOnline.com discovered.

According to a source, the up-and-coming network is interested in both Lemon and Carlson. A team was said to have flown to NYC to discuss the potential new employees, turning a blind eye to the past scandals at their former networks.

The insider told TMZ that despite being well aware of both anchors' faults, NewsNation executives were prepared to take on any baggage if it meant securing the high-profile talent.

***

NewsNation recently announced a 24-hour news cycle, which meant they needed more talent to fill their roster, especially after they parted ways with Sean Spicer.

zoux posted:

I'm reading this article to see what they are trumping up to ban her from speaking, and the best I can tell is that the offending was remark was that they'd have "blood on their hands". That is baby soft rhetoric.

Silly Burrito posted:

So she’s not kicked out formally but she’s banned from even talking or going to the floor? What happens if she does, do they physically try to keep her out?

quote:

Sales of cigarettes that mimic menthol are soaring in California after the state outlawed most flavored tobacco — a sign that the industry is undermining the new law and raising doubts about the Biden administration’s plans to ban menthol cigarettes later this year.

R.J. Reynolds launched its “California compliant” cigarettes, which contain an artificial, flavorless cooling chemical, when the state’s ban went into effect in December. By March, sales of the new cigarettes were on pace to replace nearly half of menthol sales compared with last year, according to an expert who tracks cigarette sale trends.

The success of the new cigarettes in California comes ahead of an expected federal Food and Drug Administration menthol cigarette ban this year. State and federal officials have long viewed eliminating these cigarettes as key to lowering smoking rates because their cooling effects make inhaling smoke more palatable. But if authorities aren’t prepared to police new tobacco varieties that emerge in response to the ban, it’s far from certain that government flavor prohibitions will prompt smokers to quit.

Menthol cigarettes make up nearly 40 percent of cigarette sales and are particularly popular in minority communities. About 90 percent of Black smokers report using menthol products.

quote:

The controversial bill allowing the state’s dominant nonprofit health insurer to act more like a for-profit company pushed through a House committee Tuesday after an abbreviated discussion and a divided vote.

The bill would allow the nonprofit, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, to create a holding company that could use insurance company assets to buy other businesses without having to win approval from state regulators.

House Bill 346 has drawn bipartisan supporters and opponents. Republican Rep. John Bradford of Mecklenburg has taken charge of moving the bill through his chamber. Blue Cross needs to move with the ease and speed of for-profits such as Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, he told the committee. Blue Cross “is a business trying to compete in a highly competitive, rapidly changing industry,” he said.

Part of his argument Tuesday rested on economic development — that allowing Blue Cross to act more like a for-profit company will mean that it can increase its workforce. House Democratic leader Robert Reives, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, stood with Bradford during the committee debate.

Republican Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey has been the bill’s most outspoken opponent. The bill is good for Blue Cross, Causey said, but not the 4.3 million policyholders who would see their premiums increase if the company is able to use their money to invest as if it were a for-profit company.

“I’ve not seen a single person that says this is good for the consumer,” Causey said Tuesday. He held a press conference Monday to denounce the bill. One of the leaders of the House Health Committee, Rep. Donna White, a Johnston County Republican, attended and expressed reservations.

The bill has huge implications for the state, but the time for public debate was held to 10 minutes Tuesday. Bradford did not have enough time to explain the bill in its entirety before Causey was asked to comment.

The bill moved out of committee with a mix of yes and no voice votes. No member asked for a vote count.

Sixty members of the 120-member House have signed on to the bill. Thirty of 50 senators have signed on to the Senate companion bill.

Changes will be made to the bill in an attempt to satisfy the NC Medical Society — the state’s association for doctors — before it hits the House Insurance Committee on Wednesday, Bradford said.

Willa Rogers posted:

Two interesting state-related news stories:

RJR uses California as test market for skirting upcoming national menthol cigarette ban:

(more at link)

CuddleCryptid posted:

Even these chickenshits know that they don't have anything they could put up to expel her so they are playing a game of "well you aren't under arrest but we're putting you in this room and you can't leave."

Fantastic, i hope she can get several bullhorn, tape them together, and break the windows of the legislature building from the outside with her objections.

PhazonLink posted:

so Montana is using a different law spell and the city , country, region of her state cant just counter spell it like TN?

zoux posted:

I'm afraid not, the last two state legislators that were railroaded based on parliamentary fuckery were never heard from again, and certainly not catapulted into national prominence while the state republicans who did it gnashed their teeth and rent their garments.

Young Freud posted:

I don't understand why they didn't do it the next day, instead of doing this whole "you're not censured but you can't speak" and dragging things out. That said, I'm pretty sure that they planned for their reaction to the rally and the call for the riot cops to clear the galleries, just so they can claim she was "leading an insurrection".

pork never goes bad posted:

Spicy-rear end filing.The following excerpts capture most of the most interesting (to me) legal issues at stake here. Primarily I'm concerned with the First Amendment implications of this suit as well as the Due Process implications, so I've focused somewhat more on that here. That said there's plenty of strongly worded stuff about the business impact to Disney too. I just don't give much of a poo poo about that except insofar as the Contract and Takings Clause violations underly the Due Process implications. Bolding is mine, italics are Disney's. I've mostly removed citations and the glosses Disney's lawyers provide of those citations.











It seems to me that Disney have a prima facie strong case and have demonstrated standing. And that they are likely to win on the merits. Following the introduction the Parties and Jurisdiction and Venue sections seem uncontroversial and Disney seems to have the right of things here, unsurprisingly. Section A of the Factual Background is also interesting, but primarily if you have any historical interest in Disney's presence in Florida and in how Disney views itself or in how Florida courts have ruled on the RCID in the past. Needless to say, this all also supports Disney's position. Section B is more boring facts about the Comprehensive Plan that RCID had in place and which DeSantis et al are trying to overturn.

Section C ("Disney Publicly Comments on House Bill 1557") is where it gets interesting again.

Sections D through G continue similarly, describing how DeSantis and the Legislature dissolved the RCID and seized control of the RCID Board. It also articulates numerous ways that the retaliatory actions of DeSantis and the Florida Legislature were not even vaguely viewpoint neutral, and establishes that the various other rationales for the bill are spurious. There's lots of documentation of DeSantis's use of shibboleths like "woke corporation" which, like, what does woke even mean any more? Very ugh. They also begin to demonstrate concrete economic harms to Disney as a result of this legislation and to demonstrate the violations of the Contracts and Takings Clauses that they allege.

After the factfinding, Disney proceeds to their Causes of Action. Their Contracts Clause Violations appear particularly clear.

The Takings Clause violations aren't quite as straightforward in that they rely on the fact that some Contracts are a form of property and that since these Contracts refer to "specific real property" they are the sort of Contract that is a form of property. It should be noted that this is pretty fundamental and firmly established precedent at this point. I won't quote here because it's basically an extension of the Contracts Clause arguments.

The Third Cause of Action alleges Due Process violations, and again depends on the Contracts Clause violations and the Takings Clause violations. Again, it reads as entirely plausible. The State has a very steep hill to climb on all three of these Causes of Action, and findings for the State would overturn many major precedents that fundamentally define our business and legal landscape.

The Fourth Cause of Action alleges the first First Amendment violations and is my favorite bit of this entire filing. I love it. I love it, in particular, because here Disney first plausibly ask for declaratory judgment.





The Fifth Cause of Action also alleges First Amendment violations and also requests declaratory judgment, this time on the basis that both pieces of legislation are retaliatory. I think either or both of these could prevail, though I'm uncertain. The courts have been stupid on these issues when it comes to things like cops arresting bystanders, for example. Finally, the Prayer for Relief reiterates the requests that Disney has made of the court in the preceeding Causes of Action. Nothing new here, but if Disney gets even a portion of what it wants DeSantis is going to look even more loving stupid.

Gyges posted:

Being governed by our sovereign Mickey can't be worse than who's been in charge the 30 years I've lived here.

Gyges posted:

Being governed by our sovereign Mickey can't be worse than who's been in charge the 30 years I've lived here.

FlamingLiberal posted:

As a fellow Floridian I unfortunately agree

mdemone posted:

Silly Burrito posted:

There have been a lot of Goofys.