California: No rockets because of political statements

[Horace]

@George-K said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

I didn't follow the DeSantis Disney story too closely.

Correct me if I'm wrong wrong, but wasn't that all about zoning and Disney getting perks that other businesses didn't get?

California's case seems to be about mean tweets.

Disney got sweet heart deals for some regulations because they historically had such a tight relationship with the government. Those deals were discretionary and optional. The state was motivated to make those deals less sweet, as Disney played politics against the political interests of the people who voted the government in. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people, might be expected to do just that.

[jon-nyc]

You realize that defense works just fine for the coastal commission I assume.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

You realize that defense works just fine for the coastal commission I assume.

Yes, I am an actually reasonable human being who understands the implications of his ideas.

I can also coherently think CA is being idiotic, without thinking they are violating a fanciful principle against political considerations in discretionary relationships with private industry.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

They managed to write a law that didn’t mention the word ‘Disney’, rather it specified specific criteria that, by happy coincidence, included Disney and no one else.

E Jean Carroll smiled.

[jon-nyc]

Interesting. You were licking your chops waiting for the delicious hypocrisy to emerge, and when I pointed out that it already had and it’s all on your side, you suddenly define away hypocrisy as it relates to states punishing actors for their politics.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

You realize that defense works just fine for the coastal commission I assume.

Not really. It did at first blush before I had my coffee. And I wouldn’t call any of the posters on here butthurt. I was more bemused than anything.

But this is interesting that California Coadtal Commission wants to go to war with a company that is vital to National Defense and is also one of the most critical parts of the Hurricane recovery efforts in the Blue Ridge over political disagreements.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

Interesting. You were licking your chops waiting for the delicious hypocrisy to emerge, and when I pointed out that it already had and it’s all on your side, you suddenly define away hypocrisy as it relates to states punishing actors for their politics.

First of all, I don't actually believe you would have come out against this, but for having been painted in the corner with your fanciful "principle" that doesn't actually exist, which you used back in the DeSantis/Disney discussions. But be that as it may, I see nobody else using generally applicable principle to argue one way or another. In order for someone to be hypocritical, you'd have to define which standards they are mixing and matching.

For instance, I enjoyed DeSantis' treatment of Disney, and I think CA's actions here against Musk are idiotic and anti-social. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, because I haven't invented a principle to give either of my opinions more rhetorical punch. That is what you did, and now you're having to live with that alleged principle.

[Horace]

Without the sweetheart government money in the form of tax credits for EVs, Tesla would probably have gone bankrupt. The motivation for those deals was essentially political. Of course those weren't targeted specifically at Tesla EVs, but the effect was outsized for Tesla alone.

[jon-nyc]

The principle that the state shouldn’t punish entities for political speech predates me by a considerable amount of time.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

The principle that the state shouldn’t punish entities for political speech predates me by a considerable amount of time.

I understand you've fixated on your personal definition of "punish", but an adjustment to a discretionary sweetheart deal is not the sort of "punishment" meant to be outlawed by the first amendment.

As an example that you've failed to grapple with before, imagine a vendor with a huge government contract in San Francisco, becomes extremely politically active, and was spending their profits to support a bunch of abhorrent right-wing causes, as far as the population of SF was concerned. Does the first amendment block SF from changing vendors? Obviously no, and obviously this defeats your principle.

[LuFins Dad]

Do other companies launch in California? Boeing or such?

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

Does the first amendment block SF from changing vendors? Obviously no yes, since O’Hare Trucking vs Westlake (1996) and obviously this confirms your principle.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

@Horace said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

Does the first amendment block SF from changing vendors? Obviously no yes, since O’Hare Trucking vs Westlake (1996) and obviously this confirms your principle.

Thank you for name dropping a case. To be clear, I put it at a zero % chance you could describe in coherent words what that case establishes, such that your description matched with reality. But please do go look it up and summarize with your own words, then I'll look it up and see how well your summary conforms to reality.

[Horace]

Respondent city maintains a rotation list of available companies to perform towing services at its request. Until the events recounted here, the city's policy had been to remove companies from the list only for cause. Petitioner O'Hare Truck Service, Inc., was removed from the list after its owner, petitioner Gratzianna, refused to contribute to respondent mayor's reelection campaign and instead supported his opponent.

So tit for tat grift was found to be illegal here.

Held: The protections of Elrod and Branti extend to an instance where government retaliates against a contractor, or a regular provider of services, for the exercise of rights of political association or the expression of political allegiance.
(a) In assessing when party affiliation, consistent with the First Amendment, may be an acceptable basis for terminating a public employee, "the ultimate inquiry is not whether the label 'policymaker' or 'confidential' fits a particular position; rather, the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved." Branti, supra, at 518. A different, though related, inquiry, the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, is called for where a government employer takes adverse action on account of an employee or service provider's right of free speech. In Elrod and Branti, the raw test of political affiliation sufficed to show a constitutional violation. However, since the inquiry is whether the affiliation requirement is reasonable, it is inevitable that some case-by-case adjudication will be required even where political affiliation was the test the government imposed. The analysis will also accommodate cases where instances of the employee's speech or expression are intermixed with a political affiliation requirement.

[LuFins Dad]

It’s still not comparable. SpaceX Is launching from Federal property on a military base as part of their approved Government contract. Does the Coastal Commission actually have the jurisdictional power to restrict their launches?

[Horace]

Yeah I didn't mean to present the vendor example as analogous to this. Just something that tracked back to the same principle jon is using. In the SCOTUS decision, which was divided, there is still room for arguing whether a vendor can "effectively do their job" due to their politics. With a politically abhorrent vendor serving a population almost entirely aligned against them, funneling tax dollars to causes that population despises, any case against the government's ability to switch vendors would be ripe for legal interpretations that go counter to O'Hare Trucking vs Westlake.

[jon-nyc]

@LuFins-Dad said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

It’s still not comparable. SpaceX Is launching from Federal property on a military base as part of their approved Government contract. Does the Coastal Commission actually have the jurisdictional power to restrict their launches?

The coastal commission’s ruling covers only non-USG flights. IOW Starlink.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

But please do go look it up and summarize with your own words, then I'll look it up and see how well your summary conforms to reality.

As long as we’re giving each other homework assignments, you go run a mile. When you’re done I’ll summarize the case for you. Video or it didn’t happen.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

@LuFins-Dad said in California: No rockets because of political statements:

It’s still not comparable. SpaceX Is launching from Federal property on a military base as part of their approved Government contract. Does the Coastal Commission actually have the jurisdictional power to restrict their launches?

The coastal commission’s ruling covers only non-USG flights. IOW Starlink.

Still launching from Space Force’s base, no?

[jon-nyc]

I would assume so. I’ve not looked into it