Phase 2 CDC....Here We Go!

[Steelers36]

29 minutes ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

The Travel Ban upheld in 2018 denied immigration from 5 specific Muslim countries that support, financially, international terrorism.

This may be part of the anti-Trump narrative which wishes to forget the whole story (could be unintentional by you).  There were 7 specific countries involved, 5 of which have majority Muslim religious faith.  It was about terrorism and other non-cooperating issues, and it is a simple fact that most states that sponsor, or otherwise support terrorism, happen to have majority Muslim faith.

[USCcruisecrazy]

1 minute ago, Steelers36 said:

This may be part of the anti-Trump narrative which wishes to forget the whole story (could be unintentional by you).  There were 7 specific countries involved, 5 of which have majority Muslim religious faith.  It was about terrorism and other non-cooperating issues, and it is a simple fact that most states that sponsor, or otherwise support terrorism, happen to have majority Muslim faith.

I may have gotten the number wrong...I was thinking Iran, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen.  Regardless of the intent of that ban (which I supported), my comparison was trying to show the ban was not questioned because it caused undue financial hardship to a State...that's the argument for DeSantis to use.  So, I see the two situations as being unrelated.  

[Daniel A]

6 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Did not the ban cover travel from certain countries? Regardless, the main connection I see is that in both cases the state is challenging actions by the federal government that are unquestionably in areas of federal jurisdiction.

 

 

I don't believe the President had to justify his actions to the SCOTUS. Just had to show that the actions were entirely within federal jurisdiction.

"Delivering the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded the language of 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was clear in giving the President broad authority to suspend the entry of non citizens into the country and Trump's Presidential Proclamation 9645 did not exceed any textual limit on the President's authority.[53] Under 8 U. S. C. §1182(f), a President may limit alien entry when he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. . .The only prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President "find" that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. "The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here," the Supreme Court ruled. Trump acted within his powers, according to Roberts."

 

This case was about Presidential powers (not an appointed bureaucrat) and as you can see in the last sentence, the president did need to justify his actions to SCOTUS.  Also that case was about blocking certain aliens, not all aliens.  The unelected CDC director has not banned certain people, but all people including U.S. citizens from international travel by ship.  CDC director has not shown which people would represent a threat to the continuing health and safety of the United States.  I think any comparison between these two situations is comparing apples to oranges.

[Tolkmit]

49 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Would not the Supreme Court decision upholding a federal "travel ban" in 2018 suggest very little chance of success for such a suit? Both sides can legitimately claim irreparable harm so the basis for granting the state an injunction seems weak.

 

It's an issue of politics, not legality. DeSantis can target a challenge to the CSO not allowing fully vaccinated cruises. In order to prevent an injunction, the Biden administration would be forced to take a position that would hurt him politically and gain him little. So yes they could argue irreparable harm to prevent an injunction, it's just unlikely they would be willing to.

[broberts]

18 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

 

It's an issue of politics, not legality. DeSantis can target a challenge to the CSO not allowing fully vaccinated cruises. In order to prevent an injunction, the Biden administration would be forced to take a position that would hurt him politically and gain him little. So yes they could argue irreparable harm to prevent an injunction, it's just unlikely they would be willing to.

 

I don't follow the argument that the federal government would have to argue political damage. The irreparable harm I was talking about is the introduction and spread of numerous covid variants potentially harming all states.

[Steelers36]

38 minutes ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

I may have gotten the number wrong...I was thinking Iran, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen.  Regardless of the intent of that ban (which I supported), my comparison was trying to show the ban was not questioned because it caused undue financial hardship to a State...that's the argument for DeSantis to use.  So, I see the two situations as being unrelated.  

I agree with you on the two situations.  Also on the list were North Korea and Venezuela.

 

[beg3yrs]

24 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

I don't follow the argument that the federal government would have to argue political damage. The irreparable harm I was talking about is the introduction and spread of numerous covid variants potentially harming all states.

The current administration is going to have a difficult time proving they're worried about the spread of numerous COVID variants harming all states given what they're doing (or not doing) on the southern border of the US. I think that one would fall on deaf ears.

[Grego]

I still have a question as to why commercial airplanes can fly when they face the same issues as a cruise ship.  They fly into a terminal that has passengers from all over the world.  The passengers aren't tested unless it's done before boarding the flight and who know when they are tested again.

Yeah, there might be an issue since most cruise ships are foreign registry and maybe not taxed the same or at all than the US registry ships are.  However, not all the aircraft arriving in the US or departing are US registry so what's the big hold up from the CDC.

The main cruise ship companies have shown the compliance to the CDC protocols and the Princess ships have a "green" status  as shown from the last report.

If it is all politics and not "science", there is going to be a big surprise come election day.

 

[stevenr597]

16 minutes ago, Grego said:

I still have a question as to why commercial airplanes can fly when they face the same issues as a cruise ship.  They fly into a terminal that has passengers from all over the world.  The passengers aren't tested unless it's done before boarding the flight and who know when they are tested again.

Yeah, there might be an issue since most cruise ships are foreign registry and maybe not taxed the same or at all than the US registry ships are.  However, not all the aircraft arriving in the US or departing are US registry so what's the big hold up from the CDC.

The main cruise ship companies have shown the compliance to the CDC protocols and the Princess ships have a "green" status  as shown from the last report.

If it is all politics and not "science", there is going to be a big surprise come election day.

 

Although cruise ships are registered in other countries, we must not forget than many of the workers, including those at the Ports are Americans.  They have been hurt and are still being hurt due to the shutdown. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Grego said:

I still have a question as to why commercial airplanes can fly when they face the same issues as a cruise ship

Because the CDC classifies airliners as "travel" while a cruise ship is classified as "close residential housing".

[voljeep]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Because the CDC classifies airliners as "travel" while a cruise ship is classified as "close residential housing".

all inclusive resorts ?  

 

 

[USCcruisecrazy]

1 hour ago, Grego said:

I still have a question as to why commercial airplanes can fly when they face the same issues as a cruise ship.  They fly into a terminal that has passengers from all over the world.  The passengers aren't tested unless it's done before boarding the flight and who know when they are tested again.

Yeah, there might be an issue since most cruise ships are foreign registry and maybe not taxed the same or at all than the US registry ships are.  However, not all the aircraft arriving in the US or departing are US registry so what's the big hold up from the CDC.

The main cruise ship companies have shown the compliance to the CDC protocols and the Princess ships have a "green" status  as shown from the last report.

If it is all politics and not "science", there is going to be a big surprise come election day.

 

Makes no sense...here's a little info for you...a contingent sponsored by the US Government (same government that controls the CDC) arrived at our location this week...contingent from many foreign countries, to include England, France, Qatar, Canada and others.  No one tested before they came here...no one tested once they arrived...and we are housing them for the next month.  Yeah, need to wear a mask (not that they all do), but that's about it.  So, why does the US Government find this acceptable and not cruise travel??  Because this meets their needs and not cruising supports their agenda.

[Daniel A]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Because the CDC classifies airliners as "travel" while a cruise ship is classified as "close residential housing".

Enough of this minor nonsense, I have a much more important question for you.  I have crossed the equator a number of times in an aircraft but not on the sea onboard a ship.  Am I still a polywog?

[beg3yrs]

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Because the CDC classifies airliners as "travel" while a cruise ship is classified as "close residential housing".

Well, if we can redefine "infrastructure", we can redefine what cruise ships are and poof, problem solved!

[beg3yrs]

5 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Enough of this minor nonsense, I have a much more important question for you.  I have crossed the equator a number of times in an aircraft but not on the sea onboard a ship.  Am I still a polywog?

Awesome question and I look forward to Chief's answer but for now ...

 

You flew too high for King Neptune to initiate you as a shellback so no, you're still a pollywog!

 

10 points to the first one to correctly identify where this art comes from!

Edited April 6, 2021 by beg3yrs

[kamelia]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Enough of this minor nonsense, I have a much more important question for you.  I have crossed the equator a number of times in an aircraft but not on the sea onboard a ship.  Am I still a polywog?

Did you participate in the ceremony hosted by King Neptune as you were flying over?

[kamelia]

😁

 

beg3yrs beat me to the punch!

 

(With great panache, I must add!)

Edited April 6, 2021 by kamelia

[chengkp75]

12 minutes ago, voljeep said:

all inclusive resorts ?  

 

 

Do all inclusive resorts travel across international boundaries?

[Daniel A]

3 minutes ago, kamelia said:

Did you participate in the ceremony hosted by King Neptune as you were flying over?

I can't recall, there was usually cocktails involved!

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Enough of this minor nonsense, I have a much more important question for you.  I have crossed the equator a number of times in an aircraft but not on the sea onboard a ship.  Am I still a polywog?

Yes.

[Daniel A]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

Yes.

😪

[kamelia]

6 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

10 points to the first one to correctly identify where this art comes from!

 

Lobby of the Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage?

[beg3yrs]

2 minutes ago, kamelia said:

Lobby of the Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage?

Good guess as there's some great maritime art in the lobby there but nope.

 

Hint, it's been hanging on the wall of my parent's home ever since I can remember and probably much longer than that. After they passed it's now on the wall of my house. I'm positive there are others just like it. Another hint, it's part of a large document.

[voljeep]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Do all inclusive resorts travel across international boundaries?

gotcha - the CDC regulates international boundaries now - didn't know that

[broberts]

1 hour ago, voljeep said:

gotcha - the CDC regulates international boundaries now - didn't know that

 

https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/cio-orgcharts/index.html