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.
@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 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)
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
What you wrote was an accusation of partisan bias, should the court's opinion differ from your own. I'm not sure why you are uncomfortable owning what you wrote?
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.
I don’t feel like spending the 10m it would take to find the precedents.
Ok. I suspect more deliberate and knowledgeable legal minds would find some room for judgment in what you find self-evidently simple.
It's like we're assuming there is even as much of a question about the constitutionality of this, that it would be going to the supreme court. This may be such a slam dunk that you're wrong, that no suit will be brought. I guess we'll see.
-
Let's imagine jon's precedent is about chicago elected officials granting lucrative government contracts to private businesses, based on which business funded their campaign. This sort of obvious quid pro quo, I think, would be objectionable to all of us, and we'd agree it should be against the law.
Is there an equivalence between that, and what DeSantis did, even allowing that his veto was partially about the Ray's propagation of political messaging he feels is against his constituency? I would suggest that reasonable people would find plenty to distinguish the two cases. In fact I would suggest that reasonable people would be likely to find the two cases legally distinct.
Education is extremely important.
-
Let's imagine jon's precedent is about chicago elected officials granting lucrative government contracts to private businesses, based on which business funded their campaign. This sort of obvious quid pro quo, I think, would be objectionable to all of us, and we'd agree it should be against the law.
Is there an equivalence between that, and what DeSantis did, even allowing that his veto was partially about the Ray's propagation of political messaging he feels is against his constituency? I would suggest that reasonable people would find plenty to distinguish the two cases. In fact I would suggest that reasonable people would be likely to find the two cases legally distinct.
-
Let's imagine jon's precedent is about chicago elected officials granting lucrative government contracts to private businesses, based on which business funded their campaign. This sort of obvious quid pro quo, I think, would be objectionable to all of us, and we'd agree it should be against the law.
Is there an equivalence between that, and what DeSantis did, even allowing that his veto was partially about the Ray's propagation of political messaging he feels is against his constituency? I would suggest that reasonable people would find plenty to distinguish the two cases. In fact I would suggest that reasonable people would be likely to find the two cases legally distinct.
-
He vetoed $75M for USF, too. Wonder what they did?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
If you look around, much of this bally-hoo is nothing more than the usual orchestrating of the narrative by the MSM. Google it up and the algorithm dumps a gazillion stories on you, mostly saying the exact same thing, written with the exact same angle of perception.
This kind of stuff is done by the bucketload. COVID doesn't exist anymore. Inflation isn't as bad as it seems. Our job numbers are less than expected, but they're still GREAT! Anything to cover for the current administration and anything to throw shade at anything GOP. If they can kill the Presidential aspirations of DeSantis in the womb, so much the better.
That's the kind of stuff that's pretty easy to see.
The more cynical among us would even say some of these mass shootings are orchestrated for maximum political benefit, but my tinfoil hat isn't quite that big, yet.
-
@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:
@Horace No, it’s about canceling contracts for lack of support.
Financial support for the individual politician. I'm sure we'd all agree that such quid pro quo agreements between politicians and the private companies they do business with, are bad for society.
That is obviously different from a politician severing business relationships with companies he sees to be propagating politics that are against the interests of those who voted for him. In Chicago, the average voter didn't want to see any given company given a lucrative contract. The difference between the chicago situation and the florida one, is whether the voter interest was aligned with the politician's interest.
Would you be as upset if a Democrat governor severed a business relationship with a company that began throwing their marketing weight behind pro-life ideology? I think you would recognize that those who voted for that politician, would want it that way, and you would not see any bright moral line being violated.
-
He vetoed $75M for USF, too. Wonder what they did?
@Jolly said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:
He vetoed $75M for USF, too. Wonder what they did?
I don't think denying Desantis' potential political motivation is even necessary here. So what if a political motivation was in the mix? That's his job, to represent the interests of the people who voted for him. They are not interested in public money going to private companies who propagate political messaging they disagree with.
