MrMarc

Now the CDC will file an appeal to The Supreme Court or to the full 11th Court of Appeals (en banc). So it is like a chess-tennis mash up. Except no one really knows who will make the next move or who will the ball next.

No, she was actually really nice, and very honest. I don't remember why she was on the ship or how the conversation started. I do remember I felt like I had put my foot down my throat when, after I had been talking about it, she told me who she was. She was not happy with the way they made them roll it out. She actually seemed really intelligent, but my impression is she did not have the resources or control that she would have wanted to have. The bottle of wine sent to my room from her convinced me she was who she claimed to be.

I just remembered, a few years ago, if anyone remembers the truly disastrous roll out of the new app when pretty much everything disappered and was messed up for a couple of months. I was talking to a crew member, and it turne out she was either in charge or high up in the team that was responsible for it. They had wanted more beta testing and to pull it when they found so many errors with it, but they were told they could not and had to repair it in place. I used to be in IT and was expressing sympathy with her and her team. She sent a bottle of wine to my room.

Nothing against anyone that works for them, Has anything with Royal IT ever worked consistently? I have never understood how a company that depends so heavily on technology for almost every aspect of it's focus could have an IT department that is, well, like it is.

I booked it for a December cruise, but the extra meal, ability to drop off my carry on stuff and Wi-Fi is enough value for me.

That was for my earlier posts. Yes, I read it, but once I get going on a rant, I sometimes forget where I meant to go. You say the same thing, but better than I did. I understand that as a Federal Judge can do anything. As I always ask: Do you know the difference between a Feferal Judge and God? No? Neither does a Federal Judge. My point is that he really should decide the question before him. Either they exceeded their authority or they did not. Otherwise he would be taking oversight authority on the CDC's rules. Once that happens, it really does take an act of congress to take it back, and sometimes they like throwing the ball to a Judge so he can take any blame, so they create rules that give Judges oversite authority on subjects I think they shouldn't be deciding. I think the argument regarding the scope and depth of Federal authority has been debated since the founding of the country, and certainly since Gibbons v. Ogden, it has been expanding. Maybe this is the case to start restricting it. I don't know. My honest feeling is that this is neither the subject matter over which or time to start changing things. Decisions made in the face of unique situations, like COVID, many times end up with many unintended consequences. Bad facts make bad law. Further, with our Government so divided, I am afraid that any correcting legislation would be almost impossible at this point, I am afraid that many areas would be left unattended so to speak, with no one having clear authority over certain issues. If I have said the same thing earlier in this thread, I apologize. I am having basically this same discussion in many different places. No, I'm not sure exactly why either, but since I don't practice law anymore, sometimes I enjoy screeching those legal muscles that I've stopped using. This past year has provided an amazing number of opportunities, but far too often they dissolve into the "Yeah? So's your old man!" level. So I enjoy discussing it here. Oh, and in my view there really is no difference if a Federal Judge requests you to submit something or orders it. In this case, he didn't request that they submit something, just gave them the opportunity. I think that they would have been crazy to voluntarily submit something.

Sorry. I stopped. Please forgive me oh mighty sailor and controller of these very civil threads, as opposed to that other dark place. ?

The issue is that if he finds that the CDC overstepped it's authority in this instance, it will limit it in all areas, and such a ruling may have far reaching effects on many other agencies with similarly worded enabling legislation. I do not believe the Judge has the authority to order the CDC to revise the CSO. The actual question before him is whether or not they have the authority to issue the one that they did. He wanted them to voluntarily submit a new one for his approval. If they had done that, they would have ceded their authority to him forever. I seriously doubt they would ever do that, and if they did, his authority to do that would immediately be challenged by someone. I agree that the result would have to be new legislation, but in today's environment I doubt anything could be passed, thus leaving a vacuum in the space formerly occupied by the CDC. I don't think that would be a good thing. If he wanted to do that, I would hope he would use the practicality used by the Supreme Court in the eviction situation, which would leave them in control until new legislation is passed to clarify their powers. I think that would limit the possible harm such a ruling would have.

I don't think it's anyone's role to shame people, although many of them are doing that very well on their own. However, I do think it's within the governments's role to protect those of us who are vaccinated from the potential danger posed by unvaccinated people. That is why I think it is within the Government's duty to require unvaccinated people to wear masks. I am not going to argue "the science" with anyone though. Whatever study you want to through at me, common sense proves that a mask will reduce the spread of a virus, if you cannot see that, there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. However, if you ever mention the Democrats from Texas on the plane, you automatically loose your argument.

That would kinda like accidentally using someone else's cruise card that you "found" on your table.

The fact that decisions regarding a virus are going to be based on public opinion or political paranoia illustrate the problem with this whole mess.

To some, excuses, to other reasons. We live in strange times where most Americans seem to know more than any expert, who are no longer considered experts.

I shouldn't have said meet as a group, I ment consider a case as a group. And I agree that Justice Thomas will probably want a full Court to decide this.

I didn't realize the would meet as a group except when in session. It's been too long since law school.

I agree with most everything you said except for the successfully controlled part. I personally think we are like a runner collapsing a few yards before the finish line. We have the resources to have successfully controlled it by now, but because it became so polotical, we aren't fully taking advantage of resources that so many countries can only wish for. Between the previous anti-vax people, the newly created anti-vax people, and the I support my side and won't take the Vax people, we have a vector for Delta to thrive in and for more variants to be made. If a new variant finds a new entry point but stays as contagious, we could be almost back to square one. Having said that. I know that I am using some information that some of you don't believe. As for the larger political question, I wish it was being asked about something more substantial than a recreational activity. It is an important question that needs to be answered, but I really wish it was being asked about something else.

Or Justice Thomas could issue an emergency order pending the Court accepting and hearing the case.

I was told by the Social Media team (Facebook question) that this was now pending further review.

He has initial authority over things coming from the 11th District. §42. Allotment of Supreme Court justices to circuits The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation. A justice may be assigned to more than one circuit, and two or more justices may be assigned to the same circuit.

I just found this, we may have another case decide this before this one can make it to the Supreme Court. I haven't read the entire thing yet, but the issue is very similar. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A2/183598/20210712133351957_21A2 a.pdf I'll leave this here for anyone that want to read it, but I jumped the gun. This is an individual asking for emergancy relief from wearing a mask on a July 17 flight. Every Court has denied his request.

That is correct, I thought you were saying that the extension of time to respond had extended the time until the Stay took effect, I am sure it did not. I was surprised that they didn't even ask, but given the Judges mood toward them, it was probably better that they did not, and just depended on the COA. It is very disheartening to be presenting a case to a Judge that you know is already "against" you. It feels like it's 3 on 1, with the Court counting as 2.

My problem with this is that there are times when this would be a good thing. We can argue back and forth as to whether or not this is such a time, but I would rather have a government agency whose stated mission is focused on health, even if they are somewhat political. I wouldn't want to have to depend directly on our elected officials whose main focus is politics. Sometimes events call for difficult decisions to be made that are not politically popular, and we know that politicians have problems making decisions like that. However, we are vearing into a dangerous area, so can we just agree to disagree?

I agree, except the CDC did no request that the Stay be delayed, and the order did not say it was, so i believe it would have gone into effect today. I'm surprised that they didn't rule Friday. Considering that the SC left the eviction issue remain in place until it's previously planned end tells me that even if they are inclined to find the CDC overstepped it's authority, it would let it stay in place at least until November, since as a practical matter, like in the eviction case, those are the rules that everyone has been playing by and planning on, I am still concerned that decisions like this that will have broad effects on the way the CDC and possibly other agencies empowered by legislation might have, I wish the issue at the heart of the case was something much more substantial than cruising. I like to cruise, but it not exactly a critical issue in the grand scheme of things. Even if the cruise lines went bankrupt, it would not have a devastating effect on our society or our economy. And these cases truly have nothing to do with cruising, they are political disagreements as to the role of Government and by extension Government Agencies.

That what I thought you would say so now I think I know what you are saying by not saying it while telling me you cannot say it so you said it...sort of. Oh yeah, if what you're not saying is what I think you are (or aren't), have fun, unless I'm not supposed to say that, in which case pretend I didn't.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds. It may well continue on a 2 track course, with the Trial Court continuing to proceed while the Appeal also proceeds, or the focus may shift to the Appeal and the Trial Court proceedings slow down. If the Trial Court were to procced to a final judgement, it would make this appeal moot, and start a whole new process. The other option is to allow the appeal to continue to get an idea of how the Court of Appeals feels about the issues. I know a lot of you do not agree with me, but I think this is a win for the cruise lines at this point. They can continue with the plans they had made based on the CDC's rules, they keep a level playing field for all the companies, and they can blame everything on the big bad CDC, even if it is protocols that they would have enforced under the HSP guidelines. I own a small business, and it was a lot less complicated when I wasn't the one deciding what rules to have. I promise you, it's better to have someone else to blame.

But I've had 2 doses of moderna earlier this year and 1 J&J Friday, so I have two total vaccinations. I know it' strange, but it's something my doctor and I decided was best. I am afraid I will confuse them.