Well, now this is interesting.....Looks like Florida may have gotten it's way.

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, richwmn said:

 

 

 

 

At this point the process needs to finish, even if it is after cruising fully returns. The object of the lawsuit is to define the limits of power for the CDC. If the action ends now, the CDC could claim that because the lawsuit was dropped they have the unlimited power they claim.

 

And “how” is the process supposed to stop?  The CDC has the legal right to appeal and an appeals court could very well overturn the lower court decision and rule that they do have the powers they claim. If Florida had lost, rest assured they would have appealed as well.  And there will still be a trial on the merits in any event. No one expects Florida to drop its suit, but the CDC is not going to simply walk away. 

[richwmn]

23 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

And “how” is the process supposed to stop?  The CDC has the legal right to appeal and an appeals court could very well overturn the lower court decision and rule that they do have the powers they claim. If Florida had lost, rest assured they would have appealed as well.  And there will still be a trial on the merits in any event. No one expects Florida to drop its suit, but the CDC is not going to simply walk away. 

I don't expect the process to stop. Several posters have mentioned the fact that cruising may well be fully started before this lawsuit goes to trial, thus making the outcome moot. I was simply showing that there are factors that show that the process needs to complete.

 

[Daniel A]

19 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

And “how” is the process supposed to stop?  The CDC has the legal right to appeal and an appeals court could very well overturn the lower court decision and rule that they do have the powers they claim.

But, that's not the issue they have appealed.  The CDC is appealing the injunction, not a final disposition of the case (which won't come for a long time.)  If the appellate court doesn't put a temporary halt to the injunction by July 18, then the injunction takes effect on July 18.

 

I don't foresee either party just 'giving up.'  There are absolutely no guarantees whatsoever that the CDC won't extend the CSO indefinitely past November 1.  Were a federal court to in effect rule that the CDC has unlimited powers without any oversight whatsoever would be an anomaly and then it would most likely go to SCOTUS.  CDC really didn't fare too well with the eviction moratorium, the majority of justices believed the CDC overreached its authority but permitted the moratorium to die a natural death.

 

It may well be in the CDC's best interests to settle the case with Florida, lest a federal court establish rigid guidelines as to what the CDC can and more importantly cannot do.  Such a matter coming before the Supreme Court Originalists and Conservatives probably wouldn't go too well.  Conservatives and Originalists usually aren't big fans of unlimited power being vested in any government agency, especially without any oversight.

[KirkNC]

12 minutes ago, richwmn said:

I don't expect the process to stop. Several posters have mentioned the fact that cruising may well be fully started before this lawsuit goes to trial, thus making the outcome moot. I was simply showing that there are factors that show that the process needs to complete.

 

Agreed, if we get nothing else out of the lawsuit let’s get a ruling on where to draw the line with CDC.

[harkinmr]

3 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

But, that's not the issue they have appealed.  The CDC is appealing the injunction, not a final disposition of the case (which won't come for a long time.)  If the appellate court doesn't put a temporary halt to the injunction by July 18, then the injunction takes effect on July 18.

 

I don't foresee either party just 'giving up.'  There are absolutely no guarantees whatsoever that the CDC won't extend the CSO indefinitely past November 1.  Were a federal court to in effect rule that the CDC has unlimited powers without any oversight whatsoever would be an anomaly and then it would most likely go to SCOTUS.  CDC really didn't fare too well with the eviction moratorium, the majority of justices believed the CDC overreached its authority but permitted the moratorium to die a natural death.

 

It may well be in the CDC's best interests to settle the case with Florida, lest a federal court establish rigid guidelines as to what the CDC can and more importantly cannot do.  Such a matter coming before the Supreme Court Originalists and Conservatives probably wouldn't go too well.  Conservatives and Originalists usually aren't big fans of unlimited power being vested in any government agency, especially without any oversight.

I understand the focus of the appeal.  The judge made a determination as to the powers of the CDC to support the preliminary injunction.  The ultimate trial on the merits of the case, including the scope of those powers, continues beyond the injunction itself.  You can make all sorts of predictions about which way the chips will fall, but it doesn’t change the process. Neither does it mean that the CDC would be better off compromising in mediation. Given Judge Merryday’s comments in his opinion, I don’t believe any “modified” CSO would have met with his approval.  Nor is there any indication as to whether Florida was amenable to any revised order. Mediation did not work in the first instance and is less likely to work in this one. The case needs to work itself out no matter which way you slice it. This appeal was entirely predictable and should be a surprise to no one.  

[POA1]

When the CDC didn't respond to Judge Merryday's request for information and decided to appeal instead, I think it was a tactical error. If you know any judges, you know how they love a late end run like this. There was a whole long list of information requested from the agency and they simply did not provide it.

[HappyInVan]

This has already been discussed. CDC had to push it upstairs once a compromise could not be reached. 🙄

 

Let's be patient while the lawyers do their work. Eventually, the matter will be resolved one way or the other. 🙄

[POA1]

Some people hate to say I told you so. I'm not one of them.

 

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-ne-judge-denies-cdc-request-20210707-u3iljbmsvrgifdahfr3ola4yu4-story.html

[POA1]

As I said earlier, I think the CDC made a tactical mistake by not providing any of the information that the judge asked for. It's entirely possible that the 3 judge appeals panel won't care, but I think ignoring the court's request for information won't be looked upon favorably.

[Domer81mpc]

22 minutes ago, POA1 said:

Some people hate to say I told you so. I'm not one of them.

 

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-ne-judge-denies-cdc-request-20210707-u3iljbmsvrgifdahfr3ola4yu4-story.html

Many jurisdictions require an appealing party to first ask the deciding Court to stay its decision before going to the appellate court to seek a stay pending appeal.  So expect the CDC to now ask the 11th Circuit for a stay.  But, as the article noted, the exhaustive opinion of the trial court may make a stay difficult to get for the CDC.

 

One other point, if (and its a big if) sailing is back to normal before the Supreme Court decides things, it is unlikely that it weigh in on things.  Historically, SCOTUS avoids ruling in an advisory manner or deciding things it need not decide.

[kelleherdl]

8 hours ago, Domer81mpc said:

Many jurisdictions require an appealing party to first ask the deciding Court to stay its decision before going to the appellate court to seek a stay pending appeal.  So expect the CDC to now ask the 11th Circuit for a stay.  But, as the article noted, the exhaustive opinion of the trial court may make a stay difficult to get for the CDC.

 

One other point, if (and its a big if) sailing is back to normal before the Supreme Court decides things, it is unlikely that it weigh in on things.  Historically, SCOTUS avoids ruling in an advisory manner or deciding things it need not decide.

I disagree entirely.  Justice Kavannah’s supposed punt on the eviction case was a strong signal to the parties that SCOTUS wants the case to proceed through to the merits phase and full appeal.  The best case to decide limits of federal agency (CDC) ‘overreach’ is  Florida v HHS.  The case will not be moot by just having ships sail. The cruise lines will still be operating under ‘technical guidance’ that was developed under the CSO.  I was amazed that the CDC states in their request for a stay that a stay was justified partly because the cruise lines were cooperating with them.  That is so disingenuous.  Like the cruise lines had any choice.

[POA1]

If you have a chance, read the recent decision. DENIED was in caps and bold type. That hive site about cruises has a pretty in-depth article. The CDC was supposed to come back with their scientific justification and the names of the researchers. They did not.

[kelleherdl]

1 hour ago, POA1 said:

If you have a chance, read the recent decision. DENIED was in caps and bold type. That hive site about cruises has a pretty in-depth article. The CDC was supposed to come back with their scientific justification and the names of the researchers. They did not.

The definition of arrogance directed at the Court and Judge Merryday.

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, POA1 said:

If you have a chance, read the recent decision. DENIED was in caps and bold type. That hive site about cruises has a pretty in-depth article. The CDC was supposed to come back with their scientific justification and the names of the researchers. They did not.

Can you post a link to the actual 3 page decision?

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, POA1 said:

If you have a chance, read the recent decision. DENIED was in caps and bold type. That hive site about cruises has a pretty in-depth article. The CDC was supposed to come back with their scientific justification and the names of the researchers. They did not.

A judge’s decision to grant or deny a motion is always in caps and bold type. Do not read any particular inference into that. The CDC was only to come back with “scientific justification” if they opted to revise the CSO. There was no order from the judge that they do so.  

Edited July 8, 2021 by harkinmr

[Daniel A]

I don't know if this got posted or not so I'll try again. 

 

WOW!  I think this spells out Merryday's thinking on the matter:

 

[Tampa Girl]

6 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I don't know if this got posted or not so I'll try again. 

 

WOW!  I think this spells out Merryday's thinking on the matter:

 

 

And what do you really think, Judge Merryday!  Not much room for doubt.

[HappyInVan]

Let's not rush to hasty conclusions. Decisions by lower courts are often overturned on appeal or at the Supremes. 🙄

 

We need to keep our eye on the ball; i.e. cruising. This conflict (and the resulting uncertainty) is not good for the future of American cruising. Is the fall of the stock price of cruise companies a harbringer of the future in 2022?

 

Stay tuned. 😏

Edited July 9, 2021 by HappyInVan

[kelleherdl]

10 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

Let's not rush to hasty conclusions. Decisions by lower courts are often overturned on appeal or at the Supremes. 🙄

 

We need to keep our eye on the ball; i.e. cruising. This conflict (and the resulting uncertainty) is not good for the future of American cruising. Is the fall of the stock price of cruise companies a harbringer of the future in 2022?

 

Stay tuned. 😏

Thanks for your concern.  And thanks for your positive thoughts about returning to cruising.  I know you are with us in the States who are encouraged that we still have the right AND responsibility to protect our constitutional government from Federal bureaucratic overreach.

[POA1]

22 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Can you post a link to the actual 3 page decision?

Even better. Here's the whole thing as a PDF.

Florida-v.-Becerra-Cruise-Industry-Case-Order-Denying-Stay-Pending-Appeal-dated-July-7-2021.pdf

[kelleherdl]

9 minutes ago, POA1 said:

Even better. Here's the whole thing as a PDF.

Florida-v.-Becerra-Cruise-Industry-Case-Order-Denying-Stay-Pending-Appeal-dated-July-7-2021.pdf 64.57 kB · 2 downloads

Okay.   I think the 11th Circuit will not need to read very far to get Judge Merryday’s opinion that the CDC blew him off.  I cannot imagine that the panel will be impressed with the arrogance of Secretary Becerra, the CDC, and the Justice Department lawyers.

[Daniel A]

6 minutes ago, POA1 said:

Even better. Here's the whole thing as a PDF.

Florida-v.-Becerra-Cruise-Industry-Case-Order-Denying-Stay-Pending-Appeal-dated-July-7-2021.pdf 64.57 kB · 0 downloads

The whole order from Judge Merryday really articulates what I was thinking when I read the CDC's motion for an extended stay.  Basically, my impression of the CDC's position was the same response I would get from my mother whenever I asked "Why?"  -  "Because I said so.."  and there wasn't any verifiable documentation offered in the motion to support CDC's contentions.  It really struck me as an arrogant filing.  It sounds as if it struck the judge the same way.

[Daniel A]

10 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

Okay.   I think the 11th Circuit will not need to read very far to get Judge Merryday’s opinion that the CDC blew him off.  I cannot imagine that the panel will be impressed with the arrogance of Secretary Becerra, the CDC, and the Justice Department lawyers.

I think we both filed our posts at the same time and we both said the same thing.  Great minds think alike...😁

[Tampa Girl]

2 hours ago, POA1 said:

Even better. Here's the whole thing as a PDF.

Florida-v.-Becerra-Cruise-Industry-Case-Order-Denying-Stay-Pending-Appeal-dated-July-7-2021.pdf 64.57 kB · 5 downloads

 

Thanks, POA.  Methinks there is a little bit of arrogance on the judge's side, as well.  There is some highly speculative assumptions that the cruise companies would have voluntarily made the efforts to contain the virus and restrict their sailings (and revenue) for 15 or 16 months.  

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

The whole order from Judge Merryday really articulates what I was thinking when I read the CDC's motion for an extended stay.  Basically, my impression of the CDC's position was the same response I would get from my mother whenever I asked "Why?"  -  "Because I said so.."  and there wasn't any verifiable documentation offered in the motion to support CDC's contentions.  It really struck me as an arrogant filing.  It sounds as if it struck the judge the same way.

And I bet your Mother was right more often than wrong, and really did not have to justify it to you.😃