boatseller

1 hour ago, Pratique said:

You wait and see, I will be right about this. If the judge rules that the CSO exceeds the CDC's authority, he will have to explain why. That will be a roadmap for crafting a new order. CDC has statutory authority, the only question is how far that authority extends. The judge won't rule the statute unlawful because that isn't being challenged.

I know, never said the statute was unlawful.  Judges don't have to explain why, they do usually for, well, reasons, depends on how hot the potato is.

It's really sad too many people think these bureacracies are above challenge.

1 hour ago, Jimbo said:

Parks and cruiseships are MUCH different .

Other than one floats and that other doesn't, they are not that much different.

And related to communicable diseases, they are especially not that different.  In practice, theme park are worse.  Yet the CDC doesn't seem to care.

I've sailed on plenty of ships and been to plenty of theme parks.  Hotels, restaurants, lines, crowds, shows, bars, shops, pools, cast/crew, bands, keycards, busses, and now even roller & water coasters.

Wow, they're even more similar than even I had thought.

40 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I suspect that any ruling would be limited to the order itself. CDC could just create a new order that avoids the issues identified by the court.

I would love to see them try.  I don't think the Judge would be too happy with such flagrant contempt.

Especially if the order was based on the CDC not following procedures.  Sure, they can try again following the process, but by then it will be moot.  Probably one of the State's strategies.

3 minutes ago, cruisegus said:

with the approval of dozens of ships for test sailing, the case for Florida to overturn the CSO gets weaker every day.  The CDC can now say they have a plan and this plan is working

That only started happening after the States announced legal action.  The CDC is just trying to save face and give the appearence they're doing something.

In another thread, I commented on some of the more absurd parts of the test guidance, making the case that the scheme is designed to succeed, regardless of the outcome.  Meaning, no matter what happens on the ship, it will pass, even if we get literal, actual zombies disembarking because there is no zombie threshold.

When you ignore data, you can pick the data you want to use.

32 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

If the judge rules that the CSO is illegal, this invalidates the CDC's mandate as the sole agency able to grant "free pratique", and therefore, all prior requirements for "pratique" would be considered illegal as well, such as the VSP.  What agency would then be responsible for granting health clearance?  Without health clearance, the USCG will not grant entry into any US port, for any ship.

Is that really the case?  Invalidating the NSO/CSO would just reset things to March(?) 2020.  I didn't see anywhere in the filings (maybe I missed it, I'm not used to reading legal docs) about challenging VSP.

Health clearence.  The States are perfectly capable of administering this.  And let's be honest, it's mostly compliance paperwork done by companies.  I don't recall any 'surprise inspection' resulting in actual downtime for the ship.

Monday will one year since Florida parks opened and we've handled it just fine.  And remember, State health departments handle a lot more than the CDC, no reason not to add cruise ships to that list.  Beyond the immedite scope, but I want to see that happen.

7 hours ago, PhoenixCruiser said:

One step closer for the cruise lines to leave Florida.

They were already leaving because of the CDC.  Bahamas, DR, Jamaica...how quickly we forget when it's suits the narrative.

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

A few months ago (pre-vaccine) I posted here that I thought the cruise industry was being held to an entirely different standard than any other travel sector (especially airlines), and I was chided for being naïve about the unique risks posed by cruise ships. Oh they are petri dishes. Oh they are far away from hospitals. Etc. Well that was then... Now it seems the tide has turned. It is what it is. Either cruising is special or it isn't. Or maybe it's not so black and white. I don't know anymore, but I do believe with all of the sanitation that I would rather be on a ship than just about anywhere else.

Then welcome to the cause!

Oh, gosh, did I just quote Rey....I'm losing it....

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I agree with you on that, but that is not the legal standard. The court is looking for arbitrary and capricious violations of civil rights. It's usually a pretty high bar. Keep in mind that judge agreed that the CDC exceeded it's authority, but she also believes that the CDC has an overriding interest in maintaining the eviction ban until the appeals court weighs in. And yesterday the appeals court agreed with the CDC, so the injunction is still on hold. That same scenario could very well happen here too.

In my view, and a lot of other people, the NSO is entirely arbitrary because it affects only the cruise lines and not the airlines.  I flew packed flights during the scarey Thanksgiving season.  CDC didn't have a problem with that despite their Section 264 authority over inter state spread.

And let's not begin to ask why theme parks have been open and packed for months with just superficial protocols.

This is probaby why I'm so...passionate about this.  I go to a park almost every day and everyone, 10k's, is totally fine with it, especially now at Universal and SeaWorld (and hopefully Disney soon).  Yet the CDC is stuck on stupid with cruise ships.

More people will be crammed into the queue for VelociCoaster in 2 hrs than an entire Oasis class sailing.  And yes, they're closer than 6 ft for more than 15 minutes.  Way closer, way longer.

Until someone can explain why flying and attraction queues are like totally fine, no worries, wash your hands...while cruise ships are reaper conventions, I won't stop.  And any ruling in favor of the CDC wrong.  End of story.

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

When you say "we'll" I take that to mean "I'll". Florida filed a motion for an injunction and then the judge sent them to mediation. The CDC didn't have a choice.

My side.

BTW...

"estimate[s] that anywhere from 1,000 to 100,000 excess cases per million population could be attributable to evictions depending on the eviction and infection rates."

Translation: Eh, we really have no idea because differences and reasons and numbers.  Sounds like their failed outdoor transmission estimate.

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

The CDC has not yet filed an answer to the complaint. At that time we will see if they challenge standing. We have not reached that stage of the litigation yet.

Perhaps, but then we'll just accuse them of 'negociating' in bad faith.

9 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Apparently he can ignore it. It's what a lot of people do these days. Just drop or disregard the parts you don't like.  You have a lot more patience than I do.  Kudos.

Haha, I explained why left out a largely irrelvant section.  You gotta keep up!

Just now, Pratique said:

The case law is not on your side in this one. Remember that the CSO is directed at the cruise lines, not the state. The state's alleged injuries are indirect at best.

Nope.  If that were the case, the CDC would have first challenged Florida's standing.  That the case continues means the Court has accepted it.

And the 10,000's of Floridians out for work are 'indirect injuries'...wow....ok....

1 minute ago, jrapps said:

Yes, but it seems I am the only one who read it. You keep pasting in a quote of the statute and cutting off the last sentence. You can't just ignore that part.

 

In post#37 above your argument was "Covid is already endemic and wide spread in the United States.  The current NSO does not satisfy this mandate because it has no material affect on the prevalance of covid and never would have"

 

There is your flaw. Just because it is already prevalent in the US does not limit their scope. You can type "prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States" all you want, it is irrelevant. Covid is here. The statute YOU mention gives them broad authority to "make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases"

 

The states can argue that the NSO or CSO don't accomplish this, but it will be a failed argument. They are designed to prevent introduction, transmission, and spread.

Well, better, but still no.  No flaw.  All you're doing is nitpicking my copy paste skills.  Though I do not consider the intra state issue germane.

My point is that covid is already here and common so this regulation does not meet the standard set forth in section 264 or the Statement of Intent in the NSO itself.  The state is arguing similarly on a broader scale that the NSO does not meet the requirements of the PHSA at all.  Basically, it is capricious and arbitrary.

Given overall prevalance, vax rates, treatments, maybe the State is asking for rules similar to Influenza and other respirtory diseases.

Just now, Pratique said:

Overriding public health regulations is not a usual role for the courts.

Irrelevant.  The court has just as much authority over the CDC as it does over Federal Housing Administration.

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

Congress doesn't seem to mind what CDC is doing either. Write your congressman instead of expecting a court to deal with it. None of these judges want to be the ones making these far reaching decisions.

Ayayay, that's exactly what the courts are for.

Just now, jrapps said:

OMG, fine. Here is the actual statute (not an FAQ) which you still failed to provide.

 

42 U.S. Code § 264 - Regulations to control communicable diseases

"The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession."

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264

 

This statute gives them VERY broad authority. Just because you don't like it does not make what they are doing ILLEGAL.

 

Seriously?  You're just quoting the same text I did.  

"you still failed to provide"  False, completely false.  100% false.  I told you the exact statute and, lookee there, you found it.

What?  This debate isn't about inter State issues.  Well it could be that's irrelevant.

"prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States"

The State can argue the NSO does not and will not accomplish this.  Back to square one.

6 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

You know, you and others keep making these pat statements about public confidence in the CDC, the NIH and Dr. Fauci.  You certainly don't speak for everyone and I'm not sure what source you have to support what you assert.  And political opinions, media personalities and conspiracy theories don't count as support. 

Right, because demand for "Dr." Fauci's book is so amazingly high it's been cancelled by everyone.  To save the trees, right?

Dang!  Those crazy conspiracy mongers at Amazon!

Just now, jrapps said:

A-ha! You missed a important part of this, and this is what happens when you mention a statute, but don't link to it or quote it!

 

The Federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

 

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-health-and-safety/who-has-the-authority-to-enforce-isolation-and-quarantine/index.html#:~:text=Under section 361 of the,United States and between states.

 

Just because a disease is already pervasive in the US does not limit the HHS or CDC to regulate and control it's spread.

 

A breakthrough.  Recognizing the other argument is the first step.

Um...no.  But awesome try!  Really.  I did not miss any point.  Nothing in the HHS FAQ changes the argument, it's just an FAQ.

You need to read the actual statute and the NSO.  My argument is that the NSO does not meet the scope described in Section 361 or the intro to the NSO itself.

The fact that they can take measures doesn't mean they have to and, news flash, most often don't.  Somehow new strains of Influenza get here and no one seems to care.  They didn't to anything for Zika.

26 minutes ago, jrapps said:

And this is the logic that causes problems. If the judge rules the way I want, then its a fair ruling. If the judge rules the other way, then the judge is wrong.

 

There's no room in this for the possibility that the judge will rule according to the law, and that you YOUR interpretation of it can be wrong?

If the CDC were acting under clear legal authority, there would be little to challange.  However, this is a case of Congress ducking it's rule making authority, instead relying on an unaccountable bureaucracy.

HHS/CDC are, conveniently for them, in charge of interpreting the law and creating rules and enforcing the rules.  So, even if this Judge rules on 'the law' the loser will move the fight to the next level.

And to answer your specific question, if the judge rules in a way I don't like, they're wrong.  Only a fool would deny that.

26 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Do you have a link to this law? My understanding is that the CDC's mission is "to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same."

 

If the CDCs sole mission was to prevent diseases from entering, then I can see where your argument is coming from. But that is not the purpose of the CDC. The fact that Covid is already endemic and wide spread in the United States does nothing as far as I know to limit the CDCs scope.

That is a Mission Statement and carries the same force in law as the Creed of the US Postal Service, exactly nothing.

I'm quoting from Section 361 of the Public Health Services Act.  The actual law that authorizes the NSO.

Ah-ha!  A breakthrough.  Recognizing the other argument is the first step.  I'm sure the Florida legal team can articulate it better than me...maybe :).

BTW, the CDC has not won anything on the Eviction Moritorium, the Judge set aside her ruling pending appeal, a very common practice.  The CDC is still down one here.

50 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Why should they change anything with regard to cruising?  The cruise lines are cooperating and things are progressing as if the Florida lawsuit didn't even exist.  When all you have is "cancel the CDC and the CSO", you have nowhere to go but down.  An incessant need to be right and to win has many times proven to do people in.  Looks like another victim will be claimed.

Well, I'm still waiting for you to do me in.  Come, on, I'm sure you can find plenty of totally 100% correct and accurate Fauci quotes to put me in my place....right?

I mean, we're all stil waiting for that one thing the CDC got right.  You haven't found anything?

53 minutes ago, coldflame said:

What are you talking about. There is no date for next hearing. The Congressional Act for Alaska actually gives them the higher odds in this case. 

Mediation failed so it's back to court.  That's just how it works.

1 minute ago, jrapps said:

That is a very interesting perspective...one I do not share but it isn't up to you or me.

 

I am curious, if you think FL has all the cards and that "nothing" justified the CSO, then you must believe  without any doubt whatsoever that the judge will approve the injunction. If that is true, what will your reaction be if the injunction is denied?

I have no idea what the judge will do but he should grant the injunction.  But I also know Judges can be wrong.

I am stating that by any reasonable standard and well published information, the CDC has out lasted the intent of the law: "prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions"

Covid is already endemic and wide spread in the United States.  The current NSO does not satisfy this mandate because it has no material affect on the prevalance of covid and never would have.  No amount of bureaucratic rulemaking will change that.

The objectives in the NSO itself were acheived months ago, especially in Florida, with little help of guidence form the CDC.  It's all become pointless.

I'll now be waiting for someone to lecture me that what's written in the law isn't really what's in the law.

Just now, coldflame said:

If you're really concerned about over reach, you need Congressional action.

A reason they're going all in with nothing to lose is because some of them know [Vice] President DeDantis will be cleaning house harder than at the Whuan lab.

4 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Interesting..is your perspective that FL has all the cards and was expecting the CDC to fold, or the other way around? I think neither are true. I don't think the CDC is being petulant at all (or no more petualt than FL is being), and are not doing this just because they "say so". If that were the case, we wouldn't have seen any movement on the CSO. Are they perfect? Of course not, it's a hot mess. But people are trying to play victim and looking for an "enemy" to fight.

 

I also think the state truly believes they are doing the right thing (even if some of us disagree that they actually are). Desantis wants to start cruising, but he only wants it to restart his way. The word compromise is not in his vocabulary. Cruising may very well start up again under the current CSO rules and nothing he did will have made an impact at all

 

People in this thread are generally going to fall into one of 3 camps. 1)you think this is all the CDCs fault and that FL is trying to save cruising. 2)You think FL is at fault, making this messier than it was especially with the vaccine thing and the CDC is just trying to get cruising started again safely or 3) both share some measure of responsibility.

 

The only vindication here will be in a ruling. And even then, I don't expect anything more than people claiming the judge kicked the can down the road.

 

Yes.  Florida holds all the cards.

There is nothing justifying any part of the NSO, Conveyence Mask Order or anything else promulgated by the CDC.  Well, to be absolutely clear, I mean nothing at all, no exceptions.

Not only is there no justification, the CDC has been flat out wrong on too many things to be taken seriously on how to wash your hands.

And the more we learn every day about the corruption and compromised nature of the NIH casts significant doubt on the motivations of these agencies.  They are not altruistic civil servants looking out for the greater good, they're real-world failures looking for a pay out.

All that and, if you just read the ever shifting guidelines, they're just stupid.  I mean no other way to describe them, stupid rules written by stupid people.  I've highlighted some of the more comical parts in other threads.