DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like

[Horace]

Even if our liberal friends on TNCR are unable to distinguish arresting people for exercising free speech, from denying a corporation discretionary public funds, I suspect the courts will be able to.

[jon-nyc]

The punishment is the key fact. Doesn’t matter if the person was not by rights entitled to the thing that was taken away (eg promotion, contract). And yes there’s precedent.

Not to say it's a slam dunk - today's court is quite different from previous ones. Although I would imagine they fancy themselves strong on first amendment protections as well as suspicious of government overreach, they may turn out to be simple partisans behind all the prose and pageantry.

[jon-nyc]

I’m just curious, are there any conservatives here that are against this ? And the Disney thing?

For the purposes of my question, answers like “I would normally be against it, but the libs have gone too far, so…” don’t count as being against it.

[Mik]

Has DeSantis supported public monies for pro sports in the past? It seems to me the media is drawing a connection that may or may not be true.

[jon-nyc]

You really say that with a straight face?

Or do you really mean something like “can anyone actually prove that this was retaliatory?”

[Mik]

Sure. There's nothing to back up the assertion outside coincidence. If you have something more than your assumption, let's hear it.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

The punishment is the key fact. Doesn’t matter if the person was not by rights entitled to the thing that was taken away (eg promotion, contract). And yes there’s precedent.

Not to say it's a slam dunk - today's court is quite different from previous ones. Although I would imagine they fancy themselves strong on first amendment protections as well as suspicious of government overreach, they may turn out to be simple partisans behind all the prose and pageantry.

So it's clearly unconstitutional, open and shut because precedent, but the supreme court might disagree because they're not as objective as you. Check.

Please do feel free to list this precedent you think exists.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

I’m just curious, are there any conservatives here that are against this ? And the Disney thing?

I am against the analogies you conjure in your attempts to convince people that this is a bad thing, but the quality of those analogies is suspect. I'm not against, in principle, an elected politician exerting the will of the people who voted for him, in allocating discretionary public funds. I might not like the decisions sometimes, but such is life. If I dig into it deep enough, the first thing I look sideways at is discretionary public funds being funneled to private corporations. But before this stuff with Disney and the Rays, if you'd asked me, "Horace, do you suppose political alignment, or misalignment, has something to do with whether a private corporation would be given public funds?", I'd have said "Yes, I suppose it would." I would not have said that with a shocked face.

[Catseye3]

@Mik said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

It seems to me the media is drawing a connection that may or may not be true.

Yeah, I had the impression that this article might well have been written by a journalist biased against Disantis. Not something I'd want to form an opinion by.

I emphasize might. I really don't know. But Florida, my god, is nothing if not made separate by its conformation and its issues.

[Jolly]

If Florida has a line item veto like Louisiana does, the governor will often single things out he does not like for whatever reason - political or fiscal.

Down here, the veto can be overridden by a 2/3's vote of the Senate.

[Copper]

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

No idea but it wouldn’t change the constitutionality of it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does "Congress" include the Governor of Florida?

[Larry]

@Axtremus said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@LuFins-Dad said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

... I think it’s time for a little pushback against the corporate activism…

No, what you term "corporate activism" here is First Amendment protected speech. Individuals and private entities can "push back" if they want, but the state cannot. It is unconstitutional for the state to punish a private entity for the content of its speech.

His logic is a prime example of leftwing mental illness. Desantis made it clear they had a right to say whatever they wanted to say. Then he made it equally clear that his action was NOT about what they said, but was entirely about the use of taxpayer money to build sports arenas. The ONLY - THE ONLY- one to link this to free speech was CNN. And never mind the proven fact that CNN is an absolute joke, leftists/democrats ( I don't list liberals any more because there are no liberals any more) believe whatever swill these failed leftwing propaganda machines say.

"Ooooh, the first amendment, the first amendment!!!" they cry, totally ignoring the fact that they have already fucked over the first half of the first amendment, and now want to fuck over the second half of it. "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or the free excercise thereof" couldnt be more clear - but by the time the Left/democrats got done fucking it over now we refer to this as "the separation of church and state" and use that as an excuse to make laws regarding an establishment of religion and the free excercise of religion. Never mind that not only does the Constitution say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the separation of church and state, thats how theyve chosen to basterdize the first amendment, and now theyre attempting to use the same crippled logic to bastardize the first amendment's statement about free speech.

And they have the gall to act as though conservatives are the ones who don't get it.

Leftism and the democrat ideology are a mental illness, and a national threat. I for one won't sit quietly while they continue to fuck up our country.

[jon-nyc]

@Copper said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

No idea but it wouldn’t change the constitutionality of it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does "Congress" include the Governor of Florida?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

The punishment is the key fact. Doesn’t matter if the person was not by rights entitled to the thing that was taken away (eg promotion, contract). And yes there’s precedent.

Not to say it's a slam dunk - today's court is quite different from previous ones. Although I would imagine they fancy themselves strong on first amendment protections as well as suspicious of government overreach, they may turn out to be simple partisans behind all the prose and pageantry.

So it's clearly unconstitutional, open and shut because precedent, but the supreme court might disagree because they're not as objective as you. Check.

Please do feel free to list this precedent you think exists.

This has nothing to do with the objectivity you so admire in me. It’s merely in recognition that the current court is different materially than the courts in the 4 preceding decades. Right now, the Mississippi law banning abortion at 6 weeks is clearly unconstitutional. In 4 weeks it won’t be. That’s just a fact.

I don’t feel like spending the 10m it would take to find the precedents. One I remember involves the great city of Chicago. Believe it or not they’ve tried to punish companies that didn’t back the right guy.

[LuFins Dad]

One I remember involves the great city of Chicago. Believe it or not they’ve tried to punish companies that didn’t back the right guy.

Jon, do you see a fundamental difference between removing a special privilege that may not have been appropriate to begin with and actively punishing someone? If Luke pisses me off, is there a difference between me telling him that I'm not giving him money to go out tonight or my grounding him? (Ok, the kid's too old for me to ground, but you get the point...)

[Larry]

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@Horace said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

The punishment is the key fact. Doesn’t matter if the person was not by rights entitled to the thing that was taken away (eg promotion, contract). And yes there’s precedent.

Not to say it's a slam dunk - today's court is quite different from previous ones. Although I would imagine they fancy themselves strong on first amendment protections as well as suspicious of government overreach, they may turn out to be simple partisans behind all the prose and pageantry.

So it's clearly unconstitutional, open and shut because precedent, but the supreme court might disagree because they're not as objective as you. Check.

Please do feel free to list this precedent you think exists.

This has nothing to do with the objectivity you so admire in me. It’s merely in recognition that the current court is different materially than the courts in the 4 preceding decades. Right now, the Mississippi law banning abortion at 6 weeks is clearly unconstitutional. In 4 weeks it won’t be. That’s just a fact.

I don’t feel like spending the 10m it would take to find the precedents. One I remember involves the great city of Chicago. Believe it or not they’ve tried to punish companies that didn’t back the right guy.

But the Mississippi law that is unconstitutional is so only because there is a law on the books at the federal level that is itself unconstitutional. In 4 weeks, assuming that particular federal law Is overturned to correct the error, abortiin law returns to the states where the Constitution relegates it.

[jon-nyc]

@LuFins-Dad said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

One I remember involves the great city of Chicago. Believe it or not they’ve tried to punish companies that didn’t back the right guy.

Jon, do you see a fundamental difference between removing a special privilege that may not have been appropriate to begin with and actively punishing someone? If Luke pisses me off, is there a difference between me telling him that I'm not giving him money to go out tonight or my grounding him? (Ok, the kid's too old for me to ground, but you get the point...)

The precedent covers removal or blockage of things to which no constitutional rights exist. Contracts, promotions, etc.

[jon-nyc]

@Larry said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@Horace said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

The punishment is the key fact. Doesn’t matter if the person was not by rights entitled to the thing that was taken away (eg promotion, contract). And yes there’s precedent.

Not to say it's a slam dunk - today's court is quite different from previous ones. Although I would imagine they fancy themselves strong on first amendment protections as well as suspicious of government overreach, they may turn out to be simple partisans behind all the prose and pageantry.

So it's clearly unconstitutional, open and shut because precedent, but the supreme court might disagree because they're not as objective as you. Check.

Please do feel free to list this precedent you think exists.

This has nothing to do with the objectivity you so admire in me. It’s merely in recognition that the current court is different materially than the courts in the 4 preceding decades. Right now, the Mississippi law banning abortion at 6 weeks is clearly unconstitutional. In 4 weeks it won’t be. That’s just a fact.

I don’t feel like spending the 10m it would take to find the precedents. One I remember involves the great city of Chicago. Believe it or not they’ve tried to punish companies that didn’t back the right guy.

But the Mississippi law that is unconstitutional is so only because there is a law on the books at the federal level that is itself unconstitutional. In 4 weeks, assuming that particular federal law Is overturned to correct the error, abortiin law returns to the states where the Constitution relegates it.

Almost - it's unconstitutional because the Roe and Casey SCOTUS decisions are the law of the land. That part will disappear in a few weeks. (so it seems 99.99999% certain)

[Larry]

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@Larry said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@Horace said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

The punishment is the key fact. Doesn’t matter if the person was not by rights entitled to the thing that was taken away (eg promotion, contract). And yes there’s precedent.

Not to say it's a slam dunk - today's court is quite different from previous ones. Although I would imagine they fancy themselves strong on first amendment protections as well as suspicious of government overreach, they may turn out to be simple partisans behind all the prose and pageantry.

So it's clearly unconstitutional, open and shut because precedent, but the supreme court might disagree because they're not as objective as you. Check.

Please do feel free to list this precedent you think exists.

This has nothing to do with the objectivity you so admire in me. It’s merely in recognition that the current court is different materially than the courts in the 4 preceding decades. Right now, the Mississippi law banning abortion at 6 weeks is clearly unconstitutional. In 4 weeks it won’t be. That’s just a fact.

I don’t feel like spending the 10m it would take to find the precedents. One I remember involves the great city of Chicago. Believe it or not they’ve tried to punish companies that didn’t back the right guy.

But the Mississippi law that is unconstitutional is so only because there is a law on the books at the federal level that is itself unconstitutional. In 4 weeks, assuming that particular federal law Is overturned to correct the error, abortiin law returns to the states where the Constitution relegates it.

Almost - it's unconstitutional because the Roe and Casey SCOTUS decisions are the law of the land. That part will disappear in a few weeks. (so it seems 99.99999% certain)

They are "the law of the land" in error. I understand the thin technicality youre hanging your hat on, but im still correct.

[jon-nyc]

It's not really a thin technicality, it's been the law for half a century.

By the way, I have long thought that Roe was mis-decided, though I didn't favor having it overturned.