DeSantis files suit against Biden Admin and the CDC

[njhorseman]

59 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

If I'm not mistaken, the Florida Executive Order doesn't come into effect until July 1, and I think it could be rescinded at any time.

You are mistaken. It became effective on April 2 and will remain in effect for the duration of the executive order dated March 9, 2020 declaring a state of emergency in Florida.

https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EO-21-81.pdf

 

Subsequently legislation was enacted prohibiting a requirement for proof of vaccination so it's now law, not just an executive order.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article250999909.html

[njhorseman]

8 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

To me, this is not the problem.  The biggest problem right now is that the CDC requires the same restrictions on a cruise whether everyone on board is vaccinated or not.  This just makes no sense.

 

I think that is why Florida continues to push the fight.

That's an incomplete assertion. The cruise lines can bypass the test cruise phase and go directly to the resumption of actual revenue cruises if they require 95% of passengers and 98% of crew to be vaccinated provided all other CDC requirements are met. By bypassing the test cruise phase the resumption of cruising, and $$ rolling into the cruise lines' depleted cash reserves will take place sooner.

[Navis]

This isn’t chess ... more like tic-tac-toe. I think people here are really combining 2 separate threads/topics here. First, this thread was about the suit against the CDC to rescind the CSO. That one is more straight forward. Arguments will be heard on the prelim injunction and the judge will pass judgement on that first. Like others, I do not think that motion will be granted as the states are unlikely to be able to establish that they will win on the merits of the case. That said, those southern US District Courts are some of the most activists conservative courts in the nation ... so they just might do something unforeseen. But that would likely be overturned on appeal. And while

on appeal, the lower court decision would be stayed ... so it’s really a lose-lose for the state as the appeals court would take about 1-2 months to hear and issue a decision any way. But, like others, I do not see this as really a case against the CSO entirely, but more to get the CDC to move off it’s opening position.

 

The more interesting to watch will be the “no vaccine proof” matter. If the cruise lines want to run cruises out of FL to destinations that require proof of vaccination, what are the cruise lines to do given FL position? Well, they can do what they are doing now for other reasons (the restrictions of the CSO) and sail out of other ports. Alternatively, the cruise lines could sue FL on the basis that the FL law, as it applies to cruise line operations, is preempted by Federal law/subject to Federal jurisdiction. That would be awkward for sure as cruise lines don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them per se, but it would be a way to get the judiciary to make it clear that the Governor of FL has overstepped his authority. 
 

I don’t necessarily blame DeSantis for trying this ... most Governors think they have unlimited power .... but the smart ones know that power is limited to wholly intra-state matters. Once infringing on interstate commerce .. they are as powerless as you and I. There are literally 1000s of cases all first year Con Law students are required to read on this topic.

[At Sea At Peace]

29 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

To me, this is not the problem.  The biggest problem right now is that the CDC requires the same restrictions on a cruise whether everyone on board is vaccinated or not.  This just makes no sense.

 

I think that is why Florida continues to push the fight.

 

I meant to concur with this earlier today.  When reading that this morning we both decided that if such is expected to still be in place for our cruise, B2B the first couple of weeks of December (MSC, Seashore), we likely won't be doing it.

[KennyFla]

17 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

That's an incomplete assertion. The cruise lines can bypass the test cruise phase and go directly to the resumption of actual revenue cruises if they require 95% of passengers and 98% of crew to be vaccinated provided all other CDC requirements are met. By bypassing the test cruise phase the resumption of cruising, and $$ rolling into the cruise lines' depleted cash reserves will take place sooner.

That's not what I am saying.  Whether or not the cruise lines require passengers to be vaccinated, they have to follow the same guidelines on the ships.  This is excessive.  You get no credit for the entire ship being vaccinated, and this is unduly burdensome on the cruise lines.

 

There are no separate guidelines for a vaccinated cruise.

[njhorseman]

Just now, KennyFla said:

That's not what I am saying.  Whether or not the cruise lines require passengers to be vaccinated, they have to follow the same guidelines on the ships.  This is excessive.  You get no credit for the entire ship being vaccinated, and this is unduly burdensome on the cruise lines.

 

There are no separate guidelines for a vaccinated cruise.

OK, I see what you're saying. As far as passenger guidelines are concerned there's no difference.  I'm just saying looking at the whole picture there's a big difference as far as the cruise lines are concerned. 

Ultimately there may also be a difference as far as the passengers are concerned. I don't think it's a big stretch of the imagination to see the CDC backing off some of the requirements fairly quickly on the "everyone's vaccinated" cruises just as they have backed off the test cruise requirement.

[At Sea At Peace]

1 hour ago, KennyFla said:

That's not what I am saying.  Whether or not the cruise lines require passengers to be vaccinated, they have to follow the same guidelines on the ships.  This is excessive.  You get no credit for the entire ship being vaccinated, and this is unduly burdensome on the cruise lines.

 

There are no separate guidelines for a vaccinated cruise.

 

You are correct.  The cruise line CEO's and others are highlighting that today.

 

It doesn't make any sense for a "restricted cruise" (i.e., the 98%, 95% crew and passenger requirement) to have the same restrictions on face masks (especially for dining - - - between bites - - - and for lounging if not 6' distanced (6' now being replaced in some jurisdictions to 3' for unvaccinated individuals), etc.

 

Also questioned today, why 98% and 95%; why not 100% as proposed (by NCL plus the SAILsafe Program protocols).

 

It is not surprising, however, based on the Defendants Reply to the Injunction Motion that, again, is based on the 2 Princess ships in February of 2020 (completely ignoring all subsequent successful cruises and virus rates a fraction of those on land).

 

It's going to be a long haul.  

 

A really long haul.  The overtures of late were, IMO, designed and dedicated to influence the Judge in the Injunction case.

 

Just IMO.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by At Sea At Peace

[harkinmr]

2 hours ago, KennyFla said:

To me, this is not the problem.  The biggest problem right now is that the CDC requires the same restrictions on a cruise whether everyone on board is vaccinated or not.  This just makes no sense.

 

I think that is why Florida continues to push the fight.

The CDC guidance issued yesterday has nothing to do with Florida "continuing the fight".  That lawsuit was filed early last month.  There was never any indication that a relaxing of rules or issuing of protocols would impact the suit.  The only thing the CDC has done by issuing its guidance last week on test cruises/vaccinated cruises, and its instructions/protocols yesterday was to shore up its defense against that ridiculous lawsuit.

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, KennyFla said:

That's not what I am saying.  Whether or not the cruise lines require passengers to be vaccinated, they have to follow the same guidelines on the ships.  This is excessive.  You get no credit for the entire ship being vaccinated, and this is unduly burdensome on the cruise lines.

 

There are no separate guidelines for a vaccinated cruise.

It's interesting that FDR is griping today about the protocols for vaccinated sailings when the protocols he included in his vaccinated sailing proposal to the CDC are effectively the same.

[knight2096]

23 hours ago, deliver42 said:

Florida and Texas have filed suite to restart cruising, but both governors won't let them ask for vaccinations. Go figure. Talk about politicizing.

More like protecting peoples rights and freedoms.

[IrieBajan54]

8 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

It's interesting that FDR is griping today about the protocols for vaccinated sailings when the protocols he included in his vaccinated sailing proposal to the CDC are effectively the same.

You mean like eating soup and pulling the mask in place after each spoonful?

Edited May 6, 2021 by IrieBajan54
correction

[Navis]

3 minutes ago, knight2096 said:

More like protecting peoples rights and freedoms.

For what feels like the thousandth time ... no one is infringing on anyone’s rights or freedoms. 
 

You still have a freedom of choice regarding the vaccine (no one is going to hold you down and force you to take it)... what you do NOT have is freedom from the consequences of your choices as it applies to non-governmental entities.

 

You have a 1st Amendment right to speech ... but if you work for a private employer, your employer has the right to fire you for your speech. You have a 1st Amendment right to your religion of choice but your employer can ban you from practicing said religion on company property and can fire you for doing so. Need I go on?

[KennyFla]

8 minutes ago, Navis said:

For what feels like the thousandth time ... no one is infringing on anyone’s rights or freedoms. 
 

You still have a freedom of choice regarding the vaccine (no one is going to hold you down and force you to take it)... what you do NOT have is freedom from the consequences of your choices as it applies to non-governmental entities.

 

 

Getting the vaccine is a choice.  So according to you, if you decide you are gay, and a bakery doesn't want to serve gay people, that is OK.

 

Everybody else thinks that is discrimination.  And I am talking here about grocery stores, theaters, etc.  I also believe when it comes to the virus cruise lines are a special case because of logistics, and should get an exception.

 

The order was to prevent discrimination.  And if you don't believe it will happen, check out New Jersey.

[richstowe]

7 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

if you decide you are gay,

Seriously ?

[Stallion]

unvaccinated people aren't a prohibited classification (ie protected class) under discrimination law so a private company is allowed to reasonably discriminate against unvaccinated individuals based on a rational basis (for example, to protect the health of their passengers)

Edited May 6, 2021 by Stallion

[hoops71]

6 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

Getting the vaccine is a choice.  So according to you, if you decide you are gay, and a bakery doesn't want to serve gay people, that is OK.

 

Everybody else thinks that is discrimination.  And I am talking here about grocery stores, theaters, etc.  I also believe when it comes to the virus cruise lines are a special case because of logistics, and should get an exception.

 

The order was to prevent discrimination.  And if you don't believe it will happen, check out New Jersey.

 

7 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

Getting the vaccine is a choice.  So according to you, if you decide you are gay, and a bakery doesn't want to serve gay people, that is OK.

FYI.  The Bakery won that case in the supreme court.  Not that I agree with it, but it is the law of the land.  Homosexuals are not a protected class under Title VII.  Hard the think the court would rule that the unvaccinated are a "protected class" under the statute.  The civil rights statute is rather limited.

[KennyFla]

1 minute ago, richstowe said:

Seriously ?

OK, ok.    But you get the point.

[dswallow]

11 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

Getting the vaccine is a choice.  So according to you, if you decide you are gay, and a bakery doesn't want to serve gay people, that is OK.

 

Everybody else thinks that is discrimination.  And I am talking here about grocery stores, theaters, etc.  I also believe when it comes to the virus cruise lines are a special case because of logistics, and should get an exception.

 

The order was to prevent discrimination.  And if you don't believe it will happen, check out New Jersey.

 

The pandemic is not a choice. Getting the vaccination is one method of moving on from the pandemic. Another is staying isolated, distanced, and keeping masked. (The latter requires a level of voluntary cooperation Americans are increasingly proving themselves incapable of managing; for that matter even vaccination is a concept many Americans seem to be paranoid about, too.)

 

The purpose of various proposed protocols/desired protocols is to keep everyone safe.

 

In the context of keeping people safe, there's things people have to do or need to do and there's things people would like to do but it's just a purely voluntary thing. Going to the grocery store? Far more on the "need to do" side of the scale. Going on a vacation? Far more on the "would like to do" side of the scale.

 

For cruise ships, requiring a vaccination is one means of addressing safety of those aboard.

 

Another is a relatively strict protocol of distancing and mask usage and health monitoring.

 

The two simply don't mix that well. Not because they can't, but because of the demonstrated unwillingness for cooperation, especially by Americans, with such voluntary measures. So if you tried to mix the two groups, how many of those unvaccinated people would start pretending they're vaccinated in order to take advantage of more relaxed protocols? And how much more would that put everyone else at risk, even including others who are following masked protocols well? Now mix in the very small, but non-zero, number of people who cannot be safely vaccinated who have to trust in the concepts of herd immunity.

It boils down to: this is why you can't have nice things. Because people are selfish and stupid and can't be trusted.

In the meantime, vaccinations move forward. With the idea that when enough people are vaccinated, the idiots refusing to be vaccinated will be isolated enough in the general population that they won't matter as much; that they won't be able to spread the infection readily because there'll be enough of a barrier of vaccinated people around them to effectively social distance them from being easy spreaders. And, eventually, the infection becomes very limited to isolated pockets that can be better controlled in general.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by dswallow

[electro]

15 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

Getting the vaccine is a choice.  So according to you, if you decide you are gay, and a bakery doesn't want to serve gay people, that is OK.

 

Everybody else thinks that is discrimination.  And I am talking here about grocery stores, theaters, etc.  I also believe when it comes to the virus cruise lines are a special case because of logistics, and should get an exception.

 

The order was to prevent discrimination.  And if you don't believe it will happen, check out New Jersey.

I don't think many gay people will tell you it is a choice!

[Navis]

Just now, hoops71 said:

 

FYI.  The Bakery won that case in the supreme court.  Not that I agree with it, but it is the law of the land.  Homosexuals are not a protected class under Title VII.  Hard the think the court would rule that the unvaccinated are a "protected class" under the statute.  The civil rights statute is rather limited.

The bakery case was really the result

of what happens when two fundamental rights collide and is a very unique and limited holding. That case was about the reach of the fundamental right to marry (which DOES extend to LGBT couples) when it meets an opposing fundamental right to religious expression. That was a very tough case, and I would not have wanted it on my docket, but it was probably correctly decided.

 

The rest of what you say is spot on ... vaccine status is not now and most

likely never will be a protected class. Again, Con Law week 1 .... most discrimination in this country is completely legal.

[Navis]

1 minute ago, electro said:

I don't think many gay people will tell you it is a choice!

No, we don’t 😀

[KennyFla]

I hear all of you.  Everybody has been looking at the order thinking about cruising, that is not why it was put into place.  Will the cruise lines get an exemption, yes I think they will.  The question of whether everyday activities require vaccination has been answered in Florida.  You can't do it.

 

DeSantis did not just dream this up one night, something triggered it.

 

 

[hoops71]

2 minutes ago, Navis said:

Again, Con Law week 1 .... most discrimination in this country is completely legal.

Sounds like we might have had the same Con Law professor! 😆

[Stallion]

Hell the interstate commerce  clause was also covered in commercial law, conflicts of law and tort (discrimination) law class too at a minimum. 

[Navis]

2 minutes ago, Stallion said:

Hell the interstate commerce  clause was also covered in commercial law, conflicts of law and tort (discrimination) law class too at a minimum. 

True! And also advanced federal

courts and federal practice.