Senate passes the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act

[KirkNC]

Just now, 1ANGELCAT said:

Just posted on RCCL forum,, POTUS signed the bill.

 

Good deal, another step taken.

[kiwimum]

And now we wait for the CDC updates.

[rkacruiser]

22 hours ago, kiwimum said:

And now we wait for the CDC updates.

 

If what I heard from the senior Senator from Alaska's web site, the Director of the CDC is going to have some uncomfortable conversations with her as well as the other members of the Alaskan Congressional delegation if the news is not Alaska cruise pro-active.  

[CruiserBruce]

2 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

If what I heard from the senior Senator from Alaska's web site, the Director of the CDC is going to have some uncomfortable conversations with her as well as the other members of the Alaskan Congressional delegation if the news is not Alaska cruise pro-active.  

So the CDC should follow political concerns, as opposed to science? I am not saying science isn't becoming more positive now...in terms of vaccination numbers,  etc. But science is not one set of good numbers for a couple of days. Its lots of days of good numbers, AND an understanding of WHY the numbers are good. If we just went with a couple days of good numbers,  we might have opened up late last summer.

[rkacruiser]

16 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

So the CDC should follow political concerns, as opposed to science? I am not saying science isn't becoming more positive now...in terms of vaccination numbers,  etc. But science is not one set of good numbers for a couple of days. Its lots of days of good numbers, AND an understanding of WHY the numbers are good. If we just went with a couple days of good numbers,  we might have opened up late last summer.

 

Your points are valid.  I agree.  All that I was trying to imply in my post was that the dithering that the CDC has done in providing prompt guidelines and approval of the plans the cruise lines have been submitted is going to keep the head of the CDC on Senator Murkowski's speed dial.  

[AmazedByCruising]

On 5/23/2021 at 1:29 PM, chengkp75 said:

 

Not really following your last paragraph, but a judge cannot rule contrary to the written law, unless he rules that the law is not constitutional.

 

The act says "cruise ships", and to make sure not every floating raft applies it lists specific ships. We all know that they meant: cruise ships. A lawyer defending the ship that was not listed could show the records where the law was discussed, where everyone was talking about cruise ships while joking about lobsters, but didn't go through the list itself assuming the list was just the definite list of cruise ships. So when they voted in favor of the act they didn't even realize that Mike's Cruising Adventures was missing. IANAL, but I think judges have some space to decide according to what they think the lawmakers intended instead of what got written down, and could say that Mike is OK, while Peter with his duck boat is not.

 

Would the US Constitution actually allow for giving random favors to certain companies that cannot be challenged? Even if judges simply look at the list and conclude that the law says what it says, what about a similar Act that says "All bread shall be sold only by bakeries in the following list: John's Bakery". There must be a way for Sophia's Bakery to challenge that.