Phase 2 CDC....Here We Go!

[nocl]

6 hours ago, Daniel A said:

"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.

You are correct the CDC's powers are more clear cut, since there has been an emergency declared by the individuals as required by law.  There certainly is a pandemic.  As such the CDC's powers are pretty clear cut and extensive when it comes to US boarders/ports.

[Daniel A]

2 hours ago, nocl said:

You are correct the CDC's powers are more clear cut, since there has been an emergency declared by the individuals as required by law.  There certainly is a pandemic.  As such the CDC's powers are pretty clear cut and extensive when it comes to US boarders/ports.

Yes, but the CDC director is not omnipotent.  He/she is still accountable to the people through the courts.  Just because the CDC director has a hammer does not mean everything related to the pandemic is a nail.  The court system will only allow the least restrictive use of authority to accomplish a stated goal.  "I don't know what's going to happen" probably won't go too far in an injunction hearing.

[broberts]

4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Yes, but the CDC director is not omnipotent.  He/she is still accountable to the people through the courts.  Just because the CDC director has a hammer does not mean everything related to the pandemic is a nail.  The court system will only allow the least restrictive use of authority to accomplish a stated goal.  "I don't know what's going to happen" probably won't go too far in an injunction hearing.

 

"Least restrictive" suggests that courts decide on the suitability of an action. Do courts not simply decide if an action is within the powers of the authority?

[Daniel A]

7 hours ago, broberts said:

 

"Least restrictive" suggests that courts decide on the suitability of an action. Do courts not simply decide if an action is within the powers of the authority?

No, that is why police agencies have clear cut written use of force policies.  Excessive force lawsuits are probably the type of lawsuit most often filed against police.

 

Also, given the seriousness of a case, the courts can remove or restrict such powers of an authority as they see fit.

[broberts]

16 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

No, that is why police agencies have clear cut written use of force policies.  Excessive force lawsuits are probably the type of lawsuit most often filed against police.

 

Also, given the seriousness of a case, the courts can remove or restrict such powers of an authority as they see fit.

 

Not the same thing at all. Nowhere close to being similar.

 

Courts are not able to remove powers granted by the Constitution. 

[Daniel A]

3 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Not the same thing at all. Nowhere close to being similar.

 

Courts are not able to remove powers granted by the Constitution. 

??? The US Constitution doesn't mention the CDC at all.  It was created as a bureaucracy under the U.S. Public Health Service, (another agency not mentioned at all in the US Constitution.)  No powers here are 'granted by the constitution.'

[PaperSniper4]

18 hours 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!😉

[ontheweb]

46 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

No, that is why police agencies have clear cut written use of force policies.  Excessive force lawsuits are probably the type of lawsuit most often filed against police.

 

Also, given the seriousness of a case, the courts can remove or restrict such powers of an authority as they see fit.

Courts tend to respect the regulatory decisions of agencies respecting their expertise.

[Daniel A]

7 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Courts tend to respect the regulatory decisions of agencies respecting their expertise.

If those decisions are creating hardship or damage, they're certainly subject to judicial review for appropriateness.  At that point justification for such actions are needed.  As I said earlier, the CDC Director is not omnipotent.  His/her decisions are most certainly subject to review, both in court and the court of public opinion.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

If those decisions are creating hardship or damage, they're certainly subject to judicial review for appropriateness.  At that point justification for such actions are needed.  As I said earlier, the CDC Director is not omnipotent.  His/her decisions are most certainly subject to review, both in court and the court of public opinion.

While you are correct, I don't believe the court of public opinion will have much sway.  As for the courts, when in the midst of a declared public health emergency (I don't recall it being rescinded yet?), if the agency that the federal government considers to be their experts on public health make a decision, I doubt that a court would intervene unless that decision violated another federal statute, or violated someone's rights.

[beg3yrs]

20 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While you are correct, I don't believe the court of public opinion will have much sway.  As for the courts, when in the midst of a declared public health emergency (I don't recall it being rescinded yet?), if the agency that the federal government considers to be their experts on public health make a decision, I doubt that a court would intervene unless that decision violated another federal statute, or violated someone's rights.

Experts are questioned and discredited in court all the time, even the government's.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, beg3yrs said:

Experts are questioned and discredited in court all the time, even the government's.

Yes they are, that's just my opinion, based on today's "climate".

[Musky Ike]

CDC must be giving in some. Cruise stocks on the rise.😊

[beg3yrs]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes they are, that's just my opinion, based on today's "climate".

Fair enough, and I understand why you'd have that opinion.

[beg3yrs]

6 minutes ago, Musky Ike said:

CDC must be giving in some. Cruise stocks on the rise.😊

Nope. NCL announced it's moving home ports out of the US and is requiring full vaccinations. RCL is doing similar. Carnival Corp announced business results that weren't as bad as analysts expected but at a corporate level they've announced they are not taking a stand on vaccinations. CCL also announced strong bookings from pent-up demand and they are now commanding higher prices.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

If those decisions are creating hardship or damage, they're certainly subject to judicial review for appropriateness.  At that point justification for such actions are needed.  As I said earlier, the CDC Director is not omnipotent.  His/her decisions are most certainly subject to review, both in court and the court of public opinion.

Yes, courts listen, but regulatory agencies have traditionally been given the benefit of the doubt. And this is especially true when it comes to public health.

 

Lots of people want to cruise is really not an argument that would hold sway in a court, maybe in these forums, but not a court.

[PaperSniper4]

53 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

Nope. NCL announced it's moving home ports out of the US and is requiring full vaccinations. RCL is doing similar. Carnival Corp announced business results that weren't as bad as analysts expected but at a corporate level they've announced they are not taking a stand on vaccinations. CCL also announced strong bookings from pent-up demand and they are now commanding higher prices.

I can remember about 9-12 months ago someone on this board was saying he doubted cruise prices would go up once cruising started again.  He felt cruise lines would be anxious to fill the cabins as quick as possible, so prices would be less if anything. I did not agree with that, and turns out, sadly, that I was correct.

 

Doug

[memoak]

59 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

Nope. NCL announced it's moving home ports out of the US and is requiring full vaccinations. RCL is doing similar. Carnival Corp announced business results that weren't as bad as analysts expected but at a corporate level they've announced they are not taking a stand on vaccinations. CCL also announced strong bookings from pent-up demand and they are now commanding higher prices.

Do you really think they are going to replace all the cruises out of Miami and Fort Lauderdale with a couple of islands ?  And how to you replace all the west coast ports ?  No islands off the coast here

[USCcruisecrazy]

24 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, courts listen, but regulatory agencies have traditionally been given the benefit of the doubt. And this is especially true when it comes to public health.

 

Lots of people want to cruise is really not an argument that would hold sway in a court, maybe in these forums, but not a court.

I don't think the argument has anything to do with "lots of people want to cruise".  I think the argument that will be presented by FL is that not allowing people to choose to cruise or not is an extreme negative impact on the economic engine that supports cruises...from dock workers to hotels to restaurants.  If they can show a hardship and the CDC's only response is "It might not be a good idea", then I think FL has a strong case.

[broberts]

1 hour ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

I don't think the argument has anything to do with "lots of people want to cruise".  I think the argument that will be presented by FL is that not allowing people to choose to cruise or not is an extreme negative impact on the economic engine that supports cruises...from dock workers to hotels to restaurants.  If they can show a hardship and the CDC's only response is "It might not be a good idea", then I think FL has a strong case.

 

CDC is not offering an opinion, it is making informed decisions in its area of expertise. 

 

Apparently 500,000+ dead people is not enough to counter economic hardship in one relatively small area of the economy. Who knew?

[Daniel A]

11 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

CDC is not offering an opinion, it is making informed decisions in its area of expertise. 

 

Apparently 500,000+ dead people is not enough to counter economic hardship in one relatively small area of the economy. Who knew?

So, is your point that Florida's economy should be punished for the CDC's failure to control this from the start?  Who's responsible for the 500,000 deaths?  Florida? CDC?  Florida and Alaska are taking the brunt of the only shut down the Federal government has mandated from the start.  According to the US Constitution "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  Sounds as if citizens of some states may have a very good case for compensation since the Federal government has shut down only one industry located in those few states.

[USCcruisecrazy]

19 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

CDC is not offering an opinion, it is making informed decisions in its area of expertise. 

 

Apparently 500,000+ dead people is not enough to counter economic hardship in one relatively small area of the economy. Who knew?

Not sure anything the CDC does is based on the best available information...always a degree of politics. power, and control in any government agency decision.  I know, because I've been a government guy for 34 years now.

 

Yeah, we all know the stats.  And we also know that you can't keep crapping on people because of what happened over the past 15 months.  At some point life either goes on or not and most people I know are all for it going on.  Not asking for undue risk...just smart processes moving forward.

 

And for the record...it may be a small area of the economy, but when it's the small part that effects your family and their survival, one shouldn't act so trivial towards them.

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Who's responsible for the 500,000 deaths?  Florida? CDC

CDC to some extent, but the majority of the blame is on the state CDC's and Health Departments.

 

21 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

According to the US Constitution "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

What "private property" is being taken, and for what "public use"?

 

Are the CDC requirements being unequally enforced against Florida and Alaska?  Can cruise ships sail from other states while those two cannot?

 

And, I'm sorry, but if the cruise lines had decided to play ball a year ago, they would not be "shut down" now.

[beg3yrs]

2 hours ago, memoak said:

Do you really think they are going to replace all the cruises out of Miami and Fort Lauderdale with a couple of islands ?  And how to you replace all the west coast ports ?  No islands off the coast here

No I don't think they'll replace ALL cruises. They do need to get at least some of their ships generating revenue though.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

I don't think the argument has anything to do with "lots of people want to cruise".  I think the argument that will be presented by FL is that not allowing people to choose to cruise or not is an extreme negative impact on the economic engine that supports cruises...from dock workers to hotels to restaurants.  If they can show a hardship and the CDC's only response is "It might not be a good idea", then I think FL has a strong case.

And the CDC's arguments will be that they are responsible for controlling the spread of a deadly infectious disease, and this is their area of expertise. And what court would want to be responsible if they ruled against the CDC, and the consequences were a major outbreak?