Alaska is suing the CDC too

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, harkinmr said:

No flaming here Daniel, although I know that is what you were hoping for.

 

First, thanks for incorporating my quotes in your response.  Notwithstanding the decision from Friday I stand by my quoted language concerning the severability clause in contracts.  I made that comment in response to contentions that there was an inherent doubt in the minds of the drafters of a contract that any specific provision of their document will fail.  There is no such inherent doubt in the mind of the drafter.  As I said, there is always the chance that any or all provisions of a contract may be challenged and the severability clause is boilerplate added to avoid the contract failing in its entirety.

 

As to the overall point of your post, my prediction for success by the CDC on the motion for a preliminary injunction was obviously wrong. However, it is important to note that this case and a decision on the merits is far from over. The preliminary injunction was stayed until July 18 and the parties ordered back to mediation to negotiate a new CSO to replace it.  We will see what, if anything, they come up with. Whatever it is, based on the tone of the judge's decision on the motion, I do not see him easily approving any replacement.

 

I believe that the CDC will appeal and the appeals court will stay the underlying injunction further pending resolution of the trial on the merits. The district court judge not only opined that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority, he also raised the question of the constitutionality of the federal statute underlying the CDC's authority.  I expect that question, as well as the results of the ultimate trial on the merits to be considered on appeal as well.  Hopefully all of this does not further slow down the restart by creating additional uncertainty.

 

You are welcome to your end zone dance, but the game is not over.  

I'm not sure if you are implying that I was hoping to get flamed or the judge's decision was what I was hoping for.  I'm not doing a victory celebration, but I did notice that important news which was a few days old was noticeably absent from CC.  My whole point all along was that eventually the CDC would need to justify its actions to a higher authority.  However the case goes from here is anybody's guess.  I'm just pleased to see CDC's feet finally getting held to the fire.  

[harkinmr]

1 minute ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not sure if you are implying that I was hoping to get flamed or the judge's decision was what I was hoping for.  I'm not doing a victory celebration, but I did notice that important news which was a few days old was noticeably absent from CC.  My whole point all along was that eventually the CDC would need to justify its actions to a higher authority.  However the case goes from here is anybody's guess.  I'm just pleased to see CDC's feet finally getting held to the fire.  

Hardly absent.  There's a whole thread on it here on the HAL board.  Link is below.  The good thing about the thread here is that, so far, it has not gotten out of control and been locked like similar threads on the decision on a few other boards.  

 

 

[Daniel A]

8 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Hardly absent.  There's a whole thread on it here on the HAL board.  Link is below.  The good thing about the thread here is that, so far, it has not gotten out of control and been locked like similar threads on the decision on a few other boards.  

 

 

I hadn't seen that thread.  Thank you for the referral.  I wouldn't have resurrected this thread had I seen it. 🙂

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, harkinmr said:

Hardly absent.  There's a whole thread on it here on the HAL board.  Link is below.  The good thing about the thread here is that, so far, it has not gotten out of control and been locked like similar threads on the decision on a few other boards.  

 

 

There are threads on this topic on several boards, not just HAL.

[harkinmr]

30 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

There are threads on this topic on several boards, not just HAL.

Yes.  And some have survived and others not.  

[Daniel A]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

There are threads on this topic on several boards, not just HAL.

Did they mostly agree with your former statements and assessments or were they 'wild conspiracy theories' as well?

[ontheweb]

46 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Did they mostly agree with your former statements and assessments or were they 'wild conspiracy theories' as well?

Are you done gloating yet? The only time I used "wild conspiracy theory" was when you came up with a theory that even you admitted was just speculation and then treated it as if it were a fact.

 

And BTW, the fat lady has not sung yet. There are appeals, and furthermore no cruises have actually sailed yet from Florida.

 

And you are going to find this hard to believe, but I once too believed the CDC would win the case. (Though I readily admit that I changed my mind.)

 

Here's the thread I started way back on May 9th where I said I was beginning to believe the CDC would lose:

 

I'm beginning to think the CDC may very well lose the lawsuit that Florida initiated - Ask a Cruise Question - Cruise Critic Community