Jump to content

US Appeals court lifts CDC cruise ship restrictions in win for florida


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Jennifer Burke said:

All I want to know is this: Assuming the CSO is here for the long run, will RC EVER be able to allow a mask free cruise for vaccinated cruisers? Or is the issue with masks is just cruising out of Florida?

A few weeks ago, Michael Bayley said he was expecting an update from the CDC that if 75% of guests were fully vaccinated then the mask mandate would be dropped for vaccinated guests.

That was over the July 4th holiday, and no update yet. So who knows.  But it sounds like that idea was at least on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jennifer Burke said:

All I want to know is this: Assuming the CSO is here for the long run, will RC EVER be able to allow a mask free cruise for vaccinated cruisers? Or is the issue with masks is just cruising out of Florida?

Forever is a very long time.  I'm sure that sanity will eventually come back and most people will feel embarrassed by at least some aspect of the COVID response.

What will trigger this? Who knows! Perhaps a change in the political climate. Perhaps COVID fatigue.  These pages have plenty of examples of people getting fed up with the CDC.  The longer things drag on, the worse it will get.

As this relates to cruising in the short term: I believe the Florida lawsuit is the reason the CDC has done as much as they have.  Now that they have the upper hand, I don't expect any further relaxation of the rules from the CDC.

That said, the cruise lines have found ways to make the best of this.  Either by being fully vaccinated or by doing test cruises.  Let's hope they can continue to find ways to relax the rules until true sanity recovers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Matt said:

A few weeks ago, Michael Bayley said he was expecting an update from the CDC that if 75% of guests were fully vaccinated then the mask mandate would be dropped for vaccinated guests.

That was over the July 4th holiday, and no update yet. So who knows.  But it sounds like that idea was at least on the table.

I'm hoping that it is still on the table. Even so, if masks are still required for even vaccinated cruisers, I can deal with that as I would only have to wear it a short time to get from point A to point B. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the current environment with the Delta variant in play, right or wrong or whatever science you choose to believe in, I don't think the CDC will make any changes.

Once they announced we fell short of vaccination targets on July 4 the pressure in the political tire deflated.   Then the appellate court sided with the CDC.  The CDC has no reason to change it now.  I think it will be several months until we see any changes if we ever do before the natural end of the CSO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew nothing would change for July 18th, that's why I didn't get my hopes up. I figured nothing much would change until maybe after the CSO expires. So I have resigned myslef to the protocols listed for July/Aug being in effect when I sail in Oct on Allure from PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MrMarc said:

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.

Couldn't congress also do something about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a related comment on masking, I just returned from an 8n Greek Isles sailing on Celebrity Apex out of Athens. Sailings from Greece fall under Greek PH policy and require guests to mask indoors. Similar to the US, once seated in a restaurant you can remove your mask. However, there is no distancing or capacity limits in bars and restaurants in Greece. Greece has a 35% vax rate, over 65s pushing 70%. The outdoor masking requirement was suspended just 2w prior to our cruise but is being reconsidered with rising Delta variant new cases. Greece has similar masking requirements in transportation hubs like the US does. If you are in an Airport, public transportation, cruise terminal and so forth, you have to mask. 

Lines sailing from foreign ports will comply with the home country masking and distancing policy that they are sailing from. Greeks have been largely compliant with mitigation measures but only to a point. There were angry demonstrations about 2 months ago demanding the government ease all restrictions and they did ease some. OTH, the  Greek government has been very supportive of the travel and leisure industry in Greece. They've been open to travelers (with restrictions) since June 2020 and with practically none since May of this year. Foreigners have to be vaxed to enter the country and this was strictly enforced with multiple check points checking your documents passing through Immigration.

Even though Apex reportedly had 99% vaxed out of 800+ guests (the 1% were kids under 16), guests were required to mask indoors but not outdoors. No staff that I observed were telling people to mask. Once that became obvious, I'd estimate that masking anywhere on the ship indoors dropped to around 60%, maybe lower. I did feel guests were sensitive to distancing and if it could not be maintained (e.g., elevators) people masked out of politeness (yes, there are polite human beings!). Restaurants aboard (not bars) had distancing but not capacity limits; that is being controlled by limiting the number of passengers to start with. Because there were so few guests, productions shows in Eden, The CLub and the main theater were easily spaced. There were reminders in all three of these venues to "Do Your Part and Stay Apart." Seemed to work without enforcement. Given that, it was easy to space in those places - everywhere actually. There appeared to me to be some dependence by Celebrity of taking responsibility for your own COVID behaviors. Not only did I like that approach but it seemed to work pretty well throughout the ship[ 

Celebrity is trumpeting that using their pandemic related health approach on Apex sailings out of Greece, basically using the HSP recommendations and, i.e., without the CDC breathing down their necks, has sailed 4X carrying 2000 guests and another 5000 crew without having a single COVID+ test and these are administered to guests once before boarding, once before debarking and any time a guest or crew member presents to medical with URI symptoms. Pretty amazing but not at all surprising. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, LizzyBee23 said:

Couldn't congress also do something about it?

Not exactly sure what "it" is but I'm assuming you mean the conundrum the cruise lines face in implementing sometimes widely varying sets of pandemic rules.

I think it goes without saying that the US government was unprepared for the SARS2 pandemic and reacted to it in a confused and chaotic way. Recall the "swine Flu" epidemic and 911. Did government agencies learn from these chaotic or poorly informed responses? There were plenty of post mortems that resulted in moving the deck chairs around. I do think the 911 Commission did some good in preventing another 911 type event on US soil.  As far as it goes with pandemics, there was a lot of stuff done relating to preparedness after the Swine Flu thing but successive administrations gutted the public health services that came up with those preparations and wrote them into contingency plans. To my knowledge, those plans went unused and, left on their own, state and local governments reacted poorly with little coordination across neighboring state and county lines and inconsistent mitigation measures that often differed between counties and even streets.  

I wouldn't rely on Congress to do anything in the short term or useful in the aftermath of the SARS2 pandemic. There could be exceptions. As it relates to the HHS and CDC, I think there is momentum and the political will to rewrite legislation that more fully limits the powers of the executive in a PHE.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the local Sun Sentinel:

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday vowed to seek — to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary — a reversal of a Saturday night court ruling that allows a federal health agency’s authority over the cruise industry to remain in place while the state pursues its lawsuit seeking to overturn that authority.

DeSantis said the state would seek to reverse an order issued late Saturday night by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta that prevented the lifting of restrictions on the cruise industry imposed in spring 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

DeSantis on Monday said he was confident that the full 12-member appellate court or even the U.S. Supreme Court would side with the state and reimpose the injunction sidelining the CDC.

I'm anxious to see the US COA's ruling in print. It appears FL's lawyers have seen it and think an appeal is worth it and not just theater. In case you're confused, here is a timeline set in Cliff Notes format:

  • In April FL sues HHS and the CDC. There are 5 elements in the suit. One of them is that the CDC exceeded it's authority when it issued the NSO and subsequently the CSO.
  • On May 13th, the case is heard before Judge Merryiday in the Middle District Court of FL. He refers the case to arbitration and to get back to him in 10d.
  • Subsequently, Several motions to delay are submitted by the CDC. Motions to add Texas and Alaska to FL's suit are filed (Alaska later withdrew because of conflicts between congressional legislation authorizing ships to sail from US ports without porting in Canada [Jones Act] and the FL suit)  
  • Arbitration fails and both sides provide their arguments before Judge Merryday on June 13th. Merryday issues his ruling on June 18th that FL wins on the merits but stays the order enjoining the CSO for 2w pending a rewrite of the CSO that comports with existing laws.
  • The CDC files a motion to stay (extend) his order to enjoin to July 18th. Merriday denies that motion.
  • On July 16th,  the CDC files an appeal to Merryday's denial with the 3 member US COA. The US COA rules 2-1 in favor of the CDC's appeal on July 17th. That stops the enjoining of the CSO on July 18th. 

According to the news above, FL is appealing the US COA's decision in favor of the CDC to the 12 member Federal Appellate Court 

There are now two court  proceedings tracking along: (1) the original trail court that Judge Merryday is presiding over - the one that he ruled in favor of FL - and (2) the appeal process involving the US COA's ruling - in favor of the CDC - that reverses Merryday's decision to deny CDC's request to stay his order.

OK, take a breath. If the US COA's reversal of Merryday's denial of the CDC request for a stay of his order is successfully appealed to the 12 Member Federal Appellate Court or, if necessary, the USSC the appeals process ends and the CSO immediately becomes a set of recommendations only. Of course I'd expect the CDC to appeal if FL prevails at the 12 Member Appellate level. That takes the case to the USSC ...... which is not in session and won't be until October.

If it comes to the USSC, FL still has a chance to make a statement before the CSO expires in November and/or make a renewal of the CSO by the CDC on December 1st impossible. 

Does this matter in the short term to us cruise fanatics? Not really and I've explained why up thread. But this case is enormously important going forward and FL's appeal makes that clear.

Desantis is a dedicated supporter of less government in our lives especially the power that springs from the abuse of executive orders and actions by the president's executive branches such as that taken by HHS/CDC. You can agree or disagree with his politics but the outcome of this case will either increase or decrease the capacity of the executive branch of the US government to establish laws without being responsible to the voters and increase or decrease the role of the Legislative branch, that is responsible to the voters, in making those laws.

Right now, the US has become over time what is essentially an administrative state meaning that the executive branch, including the president (although laws more clearly limit his powers) has been given too much power by the courts and the legislative branch has failed to reclaim it. A return to a more powerful legislature is at stake in what is seemingly a small time case. It's not.    

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, cruisellama said:

Looking at timelines, most likely event will be the CDC's CSO expiration date of 1 Nov, unless they continue wirebrush the industry further by extending that date.

I think it's nearly a guarantee they extend it (short of any resolution of the FL lawsuit). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

Responding to this question could get this thread locked, so I'll refrain ?

I'll relate the question on why Delta variants matter or don't matter to cruising. Here are the facts:

  • The Delta Variant is more transmissible
  • Rising case numbers globally and regionally are being attributed to growing percentages of Delta
  • Around 90% of new COVID cases numbers are among the world's unvaccinated cohort.
  • 99% of new COVID cases that result in deaths are among the world's unvaccinated cohort.
  • Generally, deaths and hospitalizations from COVID (serious illness) have remained steady. There are regional exceptions and increased disease seriousness tracks inversely with vax rates - the lower the vax rates, the higher the prevalence of serious illness and deaths. 

OK, fine. How do I relate these indisputable facts to cruising?

My take is that the SARS2 pandemic is being successfully controlled and managed by a combination of immunity gained from previous exposure to COVID, from vaccinations and from responsible SARS2 mitigation measures that look at the cost of such measures versus the PH benefits derived therefrom. What else matters in this equation is the remarkable growth in the capacity of doctors to manage the disease of admitted COVID patients and promote recovery. That is a stunning and mostly unrecognized contribution to the effective management and control of the virus. But, no. The media insists on creating a false narrative of catastrophe.  

Because of this, I favor an accommodative approach to new case numbers (Great Britain and others) rather than an elimination through lockdown approach (Australia and NZ). I'll acknowledge both have their place depending on circumstances.

Nevertheless, all forms of media are trumpeting a rise in case numbers as signaling dire consequences, end of times and a resurgence of the pandemic. IOW, things are out of control. IMO, they are not. We are where we should be right now in nations that have secured vaccines. Where nations have not done that things aren't so good, and that needs to be and is being addressed.

Given the media narrative, the potential for the imposition of stricter mitigation measures by policy makers in government is high. Never lose sight of that threat. Sometimes the imposition of mitigation measures is not based on the science or facts on the ground but rather on political pressures to "do something." Cruising is high on the list of targets for imposition of them and that is regardless of the facts that cruising resumed over a year ago and the incidence of cruise ships contributing to the spread of SARS 2 is non-existent. Do you think that will matter? I don't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JeffB said:

Even though Apex reportedly had 99% vaxed out of 800+ guests (the 1% were kids under 16), guests were required to mask indoors but not outdoors. No staff that I observed were telling people to mask. Once that became obvious, I'd estimate that masking anywhere on the ship indoors dropped to around 60%, maybe lower. 

Putting a CDC cap on my head for a brief moment this is the sum of all fears that the CDC has about cruise lines.  That cruise lines have no intention of actually implementing the protocols that cruise lines tout as pandemic stopping.  The CDC believes cruise lines will bow to guest pressure and protocols won't be enforced by crew.

Now ripping the dunce cap off my head...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JeffB said:

From the local Sun Sentinel:

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday vowed to seek — to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary — a reversal of a Saturday night court ruling that allows a federal health agency’s authority over the cruise industry to remain in place while the state pursues its lawsuit seeking to overturn that authority.

DeSantis said the state would seek to reverse an order issued late Saturday night by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta that prevented the lifting of restrictions on the cruise industry imposed in spring 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

DeSantis on Monday said he was confident that the full 12-member appellate court or even the U.S. Supreme Court would side with the state and reimpose the injunction sidelining the CDC.

I'm anxious to see the US COA's ruling in print. It appears FL's lawyers have seen it and think an appeal is worth it and not just theater. In case you're confused, here is a timeline set in Cliff Notes format:

  • In April FL sues HHS and the CDC. There are 5 elements in the suit. One of them is that the CDC exceeded it's authority when it issued the NSO and subsequently the CSO.
  • On May 13th, the case is heard before Judge Merryiday in the Middle District Court of FL. He refers the case to arbitration and to get back to him in 10d.
  • Subsequently, Several motions to delay are submitted by the CDC. Motions to add Texas and Alaska to FL's suit are filed (Alaska later withdrew because of conflicts between congressional legislation authorizing ships to sail from US ports without porting in Canada [Jones Act] and the FL suit)  
  • Arbitration fails and both sides provide their arguments before Judge Merryday on June 13th. Merryday issues his ruling on June 18th that FL wins on the merits but stays the order enjoining the CSO for 2w pending a rewrite of the CSO that comports with existing laws.
  • The CDC files a motion to stay (extend) his order to enjoin to July 18th. Merriday denies that motion.
  • On July 16th,  the CDC files an appeal to Merryday's denial with the 3 member US COA. The US COA rules 2-1 in favor of the CDC's appeal on July 17th. That stops the enjoining of the CSO on July 18th. 

According to the news above, FL is appealing the US COA's decision in favor of the CDC to the 12 member Federal Appellate Court 

There are now two court  proceedings tracking along: (1) the original trail court that Judge Merryday is presiding over - the one that he ruled in favor of FL - and (2) the appeal process involving the US COA's ruling - in favor of the CDC - that reverses Merryday's decision to deny CDC's request to stay his order.

OK, take a breath. If the US COA's reversal of Merryday's denial of the CDC request for a stay of his order is successfully appealed to the 12 Member Federal Appellate Court or, if necessary, the USSC the appeals process ends and the CSO immediately becomes a set of recommendations only. Of course I'd expect the CDC to appeal if FL prevails at the 12 Member Appellate level. That takes the case to the USSC ...... which is not in session and won't be until October.

If it comes to the USSC, FL still has a chance to make a statement before the CSO expires in November and/or make a renewal of the CSO by the CDC on December 1st impossible. 

Does this matter in the short term to us cruise fanatics? Not really and I've explained why up thread. But this case is enormously important going forward and FL's appeal makes that clear.

Desantis is a dedicated supporter of less government in our lives especially the power that springs from the abuse of executive orders and actions by the president's executive branches such as that taken by HHS/CDC. You can agree or disagree with his politics but the outcome of this case will either increase or decrease the capacity of the executive branch of the US government to establish laws without being responsible to the voters and increase or decrease the role of the Legislative branch, that is responsible to the voters, in making those laws.

Right now, the US has become over time what is essentially an administrative state meaning that the executive branch, including the president (although laws more clearly limit his powers) has been given too much power by the courts and the legislative branch has failed to reclaim it. A return to a more powerful legislature is at stake in what is seemingly a small time case. It's not.    

 

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

I'll relate the question on why Delta variants matter or don't matter to cruising. Here are the facts:

  • The Delta Variant is more transmissible
  • Rising case numbers globally and regionally are being attributed to growing percentages of Delta
  • Around 90% of new COVID cases numbers are among the world's unvaccinated cohort.
  • 99% of new COVID cases that result in deaths are among the world's unvaccinated cohort.
  • Generally, deaths and hospitalizations from COVID (serious illness) have remained steady. There are regional exceptions and increased disease seriousness tracks inversely with vax rates - the lower the vax rates, the higher the prevalence of serious illness and deaths. 

OK, fine. How do I relate these indisputable facts to cruising?

My take is that the SARS2 pandemic is being successfully controlled and managed by a combination of immunity gained from previous exposure to COVID, from vaccinations and from responsible SARS2 mitigation measures that look at the cost of such measures versus the PH benefits derived therefrom. What else matters in this equation is the remarkable growth in the capacity of doctors to manage the disease of admitted COVID patients and promote recovery. That is a stunning and mostly unrecognized contribution to the effective management and control of the virus. But, no. The media insists on creating a false narrative of catastrophe.  

Because of this, I favor an accommodative approach to new case numbers (Great Britain and others) rather than an elimination through lockdown approach (Australia and NZ). I'll acknowledge both have their place depending on circumstances.

Nevertheless, all forms of media are trumpeting a rise in case numbers as signaling dire consequences, end of times and a resurgence of the pandemic. IOW, things are out of control. IMO, they are not. We are where we should be right now in nations that have secured vaccines. Where nations have not done that things aren't so good, and that needs to be and is being addressed.

Given the media narrative, the potential for the imposition of stricter mitigation measures by policy makers in government is high. Never lose sight of that threat. Sometimes the imposition of mitigation measures is not based on the science or facts on the ground but rather on political pressures to "do something." Cruising is high on the list of targets for imposition of them and that is regardless of the facts that cruising resumed over a year ago and the incidence of cruise ships contributing to the spread of SARS 2 is non-existent. Do you think that will matter? I don't.  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 10:33 AM, danv3 said:

Not a good sign for Merryday’s ruling surviving. 

I dis agree... Stay can be long or short. CDC hasn't come up with anything in the alloted time and really can't un any time frame. The stay I feel will be short lived and the cdc will receive a shoe where the sun don't shine in the near future... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrMarc said:

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

Interesting. The Supreme Court is not in session. I'm not familiar, you may be. Can the USSC take up a case, in this case one that Justice Thomas has jurisdiction over, so he would rule emergently and independently?

I'm not familiar enough with the legal precedents involving a matter like this but it seems to me this case is not high enough on the list of things that the SC would jump into for such an emergency order to be issued. I say that regardless of my previous posts that outline the enormity of this seemingly small time case.

I do think Judge Merryday's ruling correctly reflected his understanding that how he ruled was going to have far reaching implications. I actually thought his ruling was so succinct and so on point that he intentionally wrote 124 pages to make it nearly appeal proof.

So, maybe, these guys at this level do understand and could move the case forward rapidly delivering a win for the concept of less government and more oversight of what Judge Merryday called the egregious presumption of authority by the executive branch of government to make what was essentially law that the CDC did not have. 

Your thoughts?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Interesting. The Supreme Court is not in session. I'm not familiar, you may be. Can the USSC take up a case, in this case one that Justice Thomas has jurisdiction over, so he would rule emergently and independently?

I'm not familiar enough with the legal precedents involving a matter like this but it seems to me this case is not high enough on the list of things that the SC would jump into for such an emergency order to be issued. I say that regardless of my previous posts that outline the enormity of this seemingly small time case.

I do think Judge Merryday's ruling correctly reflected his understanding that how he ruled was going to have far reaching implications. I actually thought his ruling was so succinct and so on point that he intentionally wrote 124 pages to make it nearly appeal proof.

So, maybe, these guys at this level do understand and could move the case forward rapidly delivering a win for the concept of less government and more oversight of what Judge Merryday called the egregious presumption of authority by the executive branch of government to make what was essentially law that the CDC did not have. 

Your thoughts?  


‘If it’s brought to them, the single justice over a certain Appellate Court CAN issue or remove a stay totally on their own or throw it to the whole court to immediately decide to issue or remove a stay as a group, it’s up to that justice how to handle it ……. This can happen even when they’re on break …. 

…… a final decision of a case (like what they release every June on cases heard) however will never be made in this manner …… that can only be decided after a case is placed on the court calendar and argues before the Justices .
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChrisK2793 said:


‘If it’s brought to them, the single justice over a certain Appellate Court CAN issue or remove a stay totally on their own or throw it to the whole court to immediately decide to issue or remove a stay as a group, it’s up to that justice how to handle it ……. This can happen even when they’re on break …. 

…… a final decision of a case (like what they release every June on cases heard) however will never be made in this manner …… that can only be decided after a case is placed on the court calendar and argues before the Justices .
 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 2:55 PM, JeffB said:

What those that have cruised recently have experienced is cruise operations dictated by the SARS2 pandemic. Personally, I'm fine with that .... for the time being and until all of this sorts itself out, and it will. The mitigation measures are inconvenient on a scale of somewhat to a whole lot depending on a cruiser's circumstance.

Just off Freedom, generally it was a good cruise, great to be back out and see the enthusiasm from the crew etc.

Not sure I will book again until the masks come off though, sailing out of Florida which has been mask free for a while it was an exercise in farcical bullshit to play the mask game which pretty every passenger and crew member acknowledged but we all played the game and tried not to get too frustrated.

Its safe for you to sit in the "vaccinated zone" of the schooner lounge mask free while other people standing six inches away "outside the zone" have to wear masks to be safe .. one of many examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrMarc said:

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


They wouldn’t meet in person as a group ….. they’d make this decision talking however they talk when not all together ……. But that’s only if Justice Thomas were to decide to not make this decision on his own and ask for a group decision.  Any justice can make stay decisions on their own for the cases brought to them from the current Appellate Court they’re overseeing. 
 

If it were to come before Justice Thomas, I have a feeling he won’t want to be the sole decision maker and will ask all the justices to vote on whether or not to allow the stay.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ChrisK2793 said:


They wouldn’t meet in person as a group ….. they’d make this decision talking however they talk when not all together ……. But that’s only if Justice Thomas were to decide to not make this decision on his own and ask for a group decision.  Any justice can make stay decisions on their own for the cases brought to them from the current Appellate Court they’re overseeing. 
 

If it were to come before Justice Thomas, I have a feeling he won’t want to be the sole decision maker and will ask all the justices to vote on whether or not to allow the stay.

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 9:24 AM, JasonOasis said:

If you don't like what one judge has to say I guess you appeal and find another.

 

I wish this saga would just end, I don't understand why the CDC continues to fight this, when it is obvious cruise lines in this country know what to do to keep passengers safe while onboard.

I mean, yes, that's exactly how the appeals process works in the United States. The reason the CDC is continuing to fight is exactly because they don't want their authority curtailed in other situations, not necessarily related to cruising. Also, they must believe they have at least a fair shot of winning. It's entirely likely SCOTUS won't even hear the case, in which case, they win by default. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, VoidoftheSeas said:

I mean, yes, that's exactly how the appeals process works in the United States. The reason the CDC is continuing to fight is exactly because they don't want their authority curtailed in other situations, not necessarily related to cruising. Also, they must believe they have at least a fair shot of winning. It's entirely likely SCOTUS won't even hear the case, in which case, they win by default. 


Currently the only decision made by a court is that the CDC overstepped their authority ……. As of now the Appeals Court has only overturned the lower court’s stay ……… the next step is for the case to be argued before those same 3 judges on the appeals court.  Regardless of how they rule, the losing party can then either ask then entire 11th Circuit court to hear their case “en banc” or they can go straight to the SCOTUS.  Once the last losing party goes to SCOTUS, only then if SCOTUS refuses to heard the case would the last ruling (either by the 3 judges or the entire 11th circuit) become final.  As of now, there there’s no winning by default for the CDC, if the appeals court were to eventually refuse to hear their case and then the SCOTUS did as well, that would be a default win for Florida.  There’s many different combinations right now for how either side could eventually win by default if SCOTUS eventually refused to hear the case after the last decision made by the courts before it comes to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, VoidoftheSeas said:

Also, they must believe they have at least a fair shot of winning. It's entirely likely SCOTUS won't even hear the case, in which case, they win by default. 

Why would that be important? Its not "their" time and money they are wasting so why does actually having a shot at winning matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ChrisK2793 said:

there there’s no winning by default for the CDC

I'm operating under the assumption that the intermediate courts are predisposed to be favorable to the CDC's position. I could be wrong, but I think the reality is that by the time this thing works its way through the whole court system, we might already hit November, and none of it will matter much anymore. 

 

10 hours ago, jticarruthers said:

Why would that be important? Its not "their" time and money they are wasting so why does actually having a shot at winning matter.

Because they are an organization made up of actual people with the objective of maintaining the authority and status the CDC has with the government and healthcare organizations. They have a team of lawyers as any organization of that size would have and their leadership has determined this is a worthwhile cause to pursue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, VoidoftheSeas said:

I'm operating under the assumption that the intermediate courts are predisposed to be favorable to the CDC's position. I could be wrong, but I think the reality is that by the time this thing works its way through the whole court system, we might already hit November, and none of it will matter much anymore. 

Sorry if this seems like a downer, but here goes anyway.

How confident are we that the CDC won't extend the CSO in November?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Very confident, especially since we'll be entering the winter viral season, they'll have more "excuses" to keep it going.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jticarruthers said:

Welcome to the permanent state of emergency .. pretty sure its a given that the CSO doesn't end without legal action forcing it to end.


EXACTLY, it’s now all about increasing government control, destroying small business, and making you dependent on them …….. it was no accident that every big box store was allowed to stay open packed full of customers (they all made record sky high profits as well) and yet mom and pop stores that sold the same exact things were too dangerous to shop in and had to be closed.

California would still be closed right now if Newsom weren’t afraid of losing power in the recall election this fall …… I bet if he survives, his lockdowns come back in no time 

This goes far beyond cruising.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jticarruthers said:

Welcome to the permanent state of emergency .. pretty sure its a given that the CSO doesn't end without legal action forcing it to end.

Dunno .... I posted in another thread that there are plenty of voices pushing back on the larger issue, that includes FL v. Bacerra, on administrative agencies, like HHS, usurping the authority of the legislative branch to make laws that potentially infringe on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms - i.e., the inappropriate powers of an administrative state. 

That is what Merryday said the CDC was doing and slammed them for it in a scathing written opinion.  There are other grievances involving government overreach when it comes to restricting personal freedoms by fiat beyond what the CDC has done.

The political will to reinstate and/or continue significant mitigation measures in the face of a largely manageable (despite what the press says and implies) infectious disease (SARS2) is lacking. We're seeing this lack of political will to do that along with public pressure in the form of protests when local governments try to re-impose closings and restrictions on mobility globally.

In that this is primarily now a pandemic of the unvaccinated, a disease burden being born by the unvaccinated, there will be strong voices in countries with high vax rates arguing that those that have been vaccinated are being curtailed in their personal freedoms by citizens who have declined to receive the vaccines when they are able to do so. This is not a condemnation of those that make that choice. The choice is theirs and I am pro-choice in this matter. It's a rendering of the impact of the mood of the people living in democratic states tired of this thing. Therefore, I feel pretty confident the ground swell of public and political pressure to not re-impose restrictions on our daily lives is going to continue to mount. We're already seeing it. The CDC knows the CSO and all that unlawful action contained in it is on life support. They will be very reluctant to continue with it under the howls of protestations if the try to extend it. JMO, YMMV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, JeffB said:

The CDC knows the CSO and all that unlawful action contained in it is on life support. They will be very reluctant to continue with it under the howls of protestations if the try to extend it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is no ruling prior to the expiration of the CSO that right before the expiration the CDC manifests a revised version with eased restrictions and touts that as the conditions with the latest extension...similar to what Merryday was asking them to come back with in his ruling.  Then they can claim they did do something to attempt to compromise to justify an extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, JeffB said:

Dunno .... I posted in another thread that there are plenty of voices pushing back on the larger issue, that includes FL v. Bacerra, on administrative agencies, like HHS, usurping the authority of the legislative branch to make laws that potentially infringe on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms - i.e., the inappropriate powers of an administrative state. 

That is what Merryday said the CDC was doing and slammed them for it in a scathing written opinion.  There are other grievances involving government overreach when it comes to restricting personal freedoms by fiat beyond what the CDC has done.

The political will to reinstate and/or continue significant mitigation measures in the face of a largely manageable (despite what the press says and implies) infectious disease (SARS2) is lacking. We're seeing this lack of political will to do that along with public pressure in the form of protests when local governments try to re-impose closings and restrictions on mobility globally.

In that this is primarily now a pandemic of the unvaccinated, a disease burden being born by the unvaccinated, there will be strong voices in countries with high vax rates arguing that those that have been vaccinated are being curtailed in their personal freedoms by citizens who have declined to receive the vaccines when they are able to do so. This is not a condemnation of those that make that choice. The choice is theirs and I am pro-choice in this matter. It's a rendering of the impact of the mood of the people living in democratic states tired of this thing. Therefore, I feel pretty confident the ground swell of public and political pressure to not re-impose restrictions on our daily lives is going to continue to mount. We're already seeing it. The CDC knows the CSO and all that unlawful action contained in it is on life support. They will be very reluctant to continue with it under the howls of protestations if the try to extend it. JMO, YMMV.  

I agree. If the government tries to implement far reaching mask mandates, even for the vaccinated, they are going to have some really angry people on their hands. As you stated, why are the personal freedoms of those who are vaccinated being questioned along with those who have made the decision not to get vaccinated. I also believe that it is a personal choice on getting vaccinated or not, but as one who is vaccinated I don't think I should be required to mask up again. Having vaccinated individuals wear masks states that the belief is the vaccines don't work, which is completely false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LovetoCruise87 said:

I agree. If the government tries to implement far reaching mask mandates, even for the vaccinated, they are going to have some really angry people on their hands. As you stated, why are the personal freedoms of those who are vaccinated being questioned along with those who have made the decision not to get vaccinated. I also believe that it is a personal choice on getting vaccinated or not, but as one who is vaccinated I don't think I should be required to mask up again. Having vaccinated individuals wear masks states that the belief is the vaccines don't work, which is completely false. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call @AshleyDillo. It's a possibility........ the pressure point though for the CDC is going to be FL's position re, first, the appeal of the lifting of the stay (to reinstate Merryday's July expiry date for the CSO) ongoing in the 11th Circuit USCOA and next the reality that Merryday ruled that FL won on the merits and then stayed the injunction. FL wants a favorable ruling on this (set aside the lifting of the stay) bad.

There are no defaults for either party, as has been noted previously. There are two ongoing and unresolved court proceedings - one in the 11th Circuit of the USCOA not yet resolved where its removal of the Merryday' stay is being appealed by FL and one yet to be resolved (the original FL Complaint) in the USDC Middle Court of FL (Merryday's court).

Here's how this is going to go down: The 11th Circuit USCOA will consider FL's appeal of the lifting of the stay - there are various options all the way up to the USSC of how this is done that I won't go into but one way or the other that ruling will either stand or be set aside. Whatever the outcome, it really has no bearing on the yet to be resolved FL complaint before Merryday's trial court.

A ruling by the 11th Circuit USCOA that sets aside the lifting of the stay ruling in favor of FL's appeal would however sink the enforceability of the CSO in it's entirety. That is because Merryday's ruling that the CSO becomes recommendations only and is unenforceable stipulates that will happen on July 18th. That date has passed. Therefore his ruling becomes effective immediately.   

Once the appeals court resolves its matters at hand, either way, the FL suit is yet unresolved and Judge Merryday will reconvene to listen to what plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys have to say. At issue is the CDC's failure to submit as Judge Merryday stipulated, "the revised version of the CSO," that you mention. Guess who has the final say on whether or not the revisions submitted by the CDC are acceptable? FLs friend Judge Steven Douglas Merryday. The CDC does not have carte blanch to ride off into the sunset claiming "they did do something."  First, as Merryday demanded, they have to submit a rewrite of the CSO that comports with existing law. Second, it will be up to Merryday if the rewrite is good to go and it's pretty clear he doesn't like the HHS/CDC attorneys who will be presenting the CDC's re-write and arguing their position before him. I think that potential hit for the CDC team has been pointed out too.    

The potential outcomes in the USDC that Merryday is presiding over are this: (1) Merryday lays the hammer on the CDC, tells them to go pack it and the CSO as it is currently written becomes unenforceable recommendations. (2) Merryday accepts a rewrite and it's over. The rewritten CSO that Merryday approved goes into affect

I don't think there is any question that its around 40 to 20 with FL in the lead in the late third quarter and they have one quarter left to score three TDs while holding FL to no points and win. I don't think they can do it. I also don't think there is a worst case scenario for FL. I'd opine that they are in the driver's seat here.

The impact for us cruisers and as it relates to our cruising experiences going forward is about zero.  The outcomes are:  The existing CSO remains in place - something the cruise lines have adapted to and, for the most part, complied with ...... or a potentially better CSO for the cruise lines that they can turn into a better guest experience emerges.

I think the cruise lines have really played this smart. They didn't sit on their hands waiting for the outcome of the FL complaint. They reportedly worked with the CSO to get ships sailing in a way that satisfied the needs of both sides.

The most significant outcome from the Merryday Court's final decision is that either way he decides on the FL claim, irrespective of an appeal by the CDC - and they will appeal -  the CDC is being told in no uncertain terms that it acted unlawfully with both the NSO and the CSO. The net result will be legislative action - exactly where it should be - to curtail the powers of the CDC in a PHE. It was those executive powers, usurped from Congress, that allowed them to wrongly interpret that they had the power to issue the NSO and CSO. They will also face much more stringent oversight of all their powers in a PHE not just those embodied in U.S.C. 42, Section 264 dealing with maritime issues and free pratique.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Whatever study you want to through at me, common sense proves that a mask will reduce the spread of a virus, 

100 % Agree

Its NOT rocket science to understand but people are blinkered by their own agendas

Its been said 100s of times vaccinated can still catch covid 

Its been said 100s of times masks are to PREVENT the spread

Its been said 100s of times some want to sail without vaccine 

Put the 3 together its easy to see WHY face masks are required....

Imagine a ship out of Florida with 90% of the passengers unvaccinated and a guest who has been spreads covid because they dont have to wear masks. 

Wearing a mask isnt about protecting yourself its about thinking about others and having respect for everyone you may come in contact with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...