Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Second Turnback This Week Due to Unruly Pax

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In somewhat related news, City of Philly is dropping it's barely week-old mandate:

    https://6abc.com/philadelphia-indoor...licy/11778105/

    Clearly, The Science(TM) changed very drastically within a week.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

      uh, let's see, maybe from people that ACTUALLY fly.

      ignorance: "Only 48% of Americans said they were comfortable flying on an airplane even with the mask mandate in place, according to a Morning Consult poll from April 10, and a Harris poll conducted April 8-10 found only 35% of respondents would be comfortable flying on a plane that day given the Covid-19 pandemic."

      lack of information and a whole shitload of disinformation has led most of the world to not know shit. americans i general are some of the least informed people on the planet. republicans included.

      you miss the point, as usual. and per your usual, once you THINK you know something, nothing no matter how telling changes your mind.

      bicycles...
      TeeVee, I wanted to get your opinion on DOJ's appeal. I mainly have three questions:

      1. Are they essentially appealing because if they didn't, it would possibly send the signal that the CDC themselves didn't believe in the mandate? (in reality they probably don't but that's beside the point)

      2. I understand that in the appeal they are NOT asking for a stay of the lower court's decision. Is that because they don't feel they can win on merit or because such a request would be denied anyway?

      3. I read something like "the appeal is about the CDC's authority to issue health orders in the future". I thought that authority was not in question, the issue is only that such orders have to stay within the appropriate legal framework. Is that not the case?

      Thanks in advance.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
        1. Are they essentially appealing because if they didn't, it would possibly send the signal that the CDC themselves didn't believe in the mandate? (in reality they probably don't but that's beside the point)
        - They are appealing to avoid a destructive precedent and assert and retain the authority of the CDC to perform its mission of protecting society.

        - They are not seeking a stay because, now that a Trump-appointed judge (an absurdity in itself) has set the masses free, reinstating the mandate would result in a sort of air-travel civil war.

        This is the realm of politics, not law ATL.

        You don't have to thank me.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

          i dont think the DOJ will appeal, since there is no question the CDC failed to allow 30 days for public comment and, as has been pointed out, cases were well into a decline by the time joe and the cdc issued the mandate so they will have a very hard time convincing an appellate court that exigent circumstances existed at the time the mandate as issued.
          I take your point about the APA violation, but is the exigent circumstances doctrine actually relevant here? Did the CDC actually use exigent circumstances arguments to bypass the 30 day consultation period? That said, I do think the judge's ruling on the meaning of the word "sanitation" is wide open for appeal. Her argument that sanitation (which the CDC is clearly empowered to regulate) is only about clearing up the mess afterwards, and not about preventing the mess in the first place, seems weak to me. It's a bit like arguing that if your job is to keep the house clean, you can only clear the dirt off surfaces, you can't stop people bringing their muddy boots into the house. She spent a half dozen pages arguing this point. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Evan View Post

            Source: Robert Koch Institute and the German States (Länder). The graph is 100% legitimate.



            Clearly you don’t care, nor do the majority of Americans, who live in a democratically-elected republic where authority is vested in a government elected by the people based upon a social contract that implies obedience from the people in return for protection from the state. The CDC is supposed to have that authority except that, just as the minority abuses the precept of majority rule with procedural maneuvers, the minority abuses the law to thwart the social contract. The minority rules in the United States.

            But that won’t stop the next wave of infections, disabilities and deaths.
            JC! you have no clue what u r talking about. the law is the law. you whiny twits lost because your vaunted cdc BROKE THE LAW period end of f#$*in story.

            p.s. if the minority is right the minority wins.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post

              Source, TeeVee. Come on, you claim to be a lawyer, you know how this works. You have to back things up or they have no merit.

              And information derived from our most scientific and reliable polls is not 'disinformation'. It's an essential function of democracy.

              It is what defends us from disinformation, things like "The majority of Americans are opposed to wearing masks on airplanes".
              ya know, 30 years ago i took this course to avoid taking post-high school math (which i suck at). it was called statistics 101. Day one, minute one. professor starts the semester by saying, "statistics are a lamp post to a drunk. used for support, not illumination."

              for every "poll" there is a counter poll. the best, most trusted pollsters said hillary clinton was going to win based on whatever bs they did to poll whomever they polled. unfortunately they were wrong. (as much as i dont like her, i actually voted for her over the cheetoh).

              and you continue to twist my point. while it is true that i dont care what ANY americans say to pollsters, i am 100% against mask mandates. always was. i dont believe i ever advocated for no one to wear a mask. rather, everyone should have that choice. if you and that old crotchety retired pilot bobby dont like it, too bad.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                TeeVee, I wanted to get your opinion on DOJ's appeal. I mainly have three questions:

                1. Are they essentially appealing because if they didn't, it would possibly send the signal that the CDC themselves didn't believe in the mandate? (in reality they probably don't but that's beside the point)

                2. I understand that in the appeal they are NOT asking for a stay of the lower court's decision. Is that because they don't feel they can win on merit or because such a request would be denied anyway?

                3. I read something like "the appeal is about the CDC's authority to issue health orders in the future". I thought that authority was not in question, the issue is only that such orders have to stay within the appropriate legal framework. Is that not the case?

                Thanks in advance.
                hey, so the filing of an appeal starts with a simple one paragraph "notice" that the party is appealing X decision/ruling/judgment. it does not have any legal argument. that comes in the appellate brief, which does not have to be filed for quite some time. the federal time-line requires the brief to be filed 40 days after the "record" is filed. the record consists of all the docs in the trial court along with transcripts of hearings etc. i honestly dont know how long the clerk has to file the record.

                1. you may be right since the doj didnt ask to stay the ruling. so to me, that says the doj doesnt necessarily think the ruling was wrong
                2. not sure, but see #1
                3. i still have not read the fairly large ruling thoroughly. i do recall the trial judge mentioning that by the time the mandate was ordered, cases were well on the way to receding. yeah, then came omicron #14329874758 and evan will cry...but let's be realistic, the intl test requirement was specifically designed to block the entry of delta into the US. too bad it had been circulating in the us for some time prior, so yet another example of abuse of power.

                all of this stuff involves the use of what the constitution refers to as "police power." the govt has to meet the requirements (whether evan and bobby like it or not) before it exercises police power. limiting personal freedom is not taken lightly in constitutional law. so while there is precedent for all sorts of stuff related to health, it is not an open and shut case by a long shot. remember, the US supreme court has shot down a slew of covid related things. and while evan and bobby will whine on about the court being stacked with trump appointees, the rulings striking down the covid stuff were not twisted abuses of the law.

                so while the basis for the ruling at issue was the CDC's failure to follow the law, there judge did slip in some hints that even if the cdc had followed the law, the mandate was questionable. again i haven't read it through. when i do i'll give you a better/more informed opinion

                Comment


                • Originally posted by flashcrash View Post

                  I take your point about the APA violation, but is the exigent circumstances doctrine actually relevant here? Did the CDC actually use exigent circumstances arguments to bypass the 30 day consultation period? That said, I do think the judge's ruling on the meaning of the word "sanitation" is wide open for appeal. Her argument that sanitation (which the CDC is clearly empowered to regulate) is only about clearing up the mess afterwards, and not about preventing the mess in the first place, seems weak to me. It's a bit like arguing that if your job is to keep the house clean, you can only clear the dirt off surfaces, you can't stop people bringing their muddy boots into the house. She spent a half dozen pages arguing this point. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
                  good points. you have read it more thoroughly than i. i'll catch up and get back to you.

                  p.s. judges are human and their personal opinions always get into their rulings, sometimes more than others. funny thing about a whole bunch of trump-appointed judges: a whole mess of them threw out trump's post-election lawsuits saying quite clearly they had NO MERIT. so while i will never argue that they are not "conservative" without real evidence, i wont say they are biased one way or another.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    a whopping ONE THOUSAND AND EIGHTY-FIVE people surveyed out of 333,000,000.
                    I won't comment on the other points because I don't have a clear position myself.

                    But if you think that a sample of 1085 has more statistical power on a population of 333,000 than in one of 333,000,000,000,000,000 then you need a refresher of that Statistics 101 class you mentioned. Don't worry. Statistics is hard, most people don't understand it, and that idea that a meaningful sample size has to have some correlation with the population size is a common and intuitive idea (but incorrect).

                    When polls get wrong results beyond the margin of error that they claimed (which is quite often) it is not because of the sample size (that is where the margin of error comes from) but because of design (what is the universe that they want to study, how are they taking the sample from that universe, how the questions are phrased, etc...)

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • ok, so i just read the entire 59 page order. WOW. kudos to the judge for a very deep dive into statutory analysis. most non-lawyers will read and say, holy crap she went so far out of the stadium just to arrive at a predetermined decision based on her trump bias. WRONG. almost all the cases she cited in her analysis came long before she was a judge and some before she was even born. we may be a young country but we have a very rich and full legal library (read: we are very litigious).

                      people dont like to hear about precedent--the idea that judges are generally bound to abide by prior decisions. this is the very heart of common law--law based on decisional precedent as opposed to a "code" which people try to claim encompasses every scenario, but they are wrong. louisiana is the only state that follows the civil code (napoleonic) and even it has a very long history of decisional precedent.

                      i gotta say it's a long read but a HIGHLY recommend yall read it.. it will give you a very good idea of how our legal system works. it shows how the 3 branches of govt have their places and duties. she did hers. WELL.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Evan View Post

                        - They are appealing to avoid a destructive precedent and assert and retain the authority of the CDC to perform its mission of protecting society.

                        - They are not seeking a stay because, now that a Trump-appointed judge (an absurdity in itself) has set the masses free, reinstating the mandate would result in a sort of air-travel civil war.
                        I suggest you follow TeeVee's advice and actually read the decision, as I just did. The "Trump-appointed judge" (I guess only presidents you like can appoint judges) explains in pretty good detail why it was the mandate itself that was "destructive precedent" and probably did more damage to the CDC's ability to "protect society" than the vacatur. She remanded the mandate back to the CDC for a "redo". The problem with bad regulations is that they impair or as you might say "hamstring" future regulations, because they cast doubt on the credibility of the agency in question. And you said yourself that the CDC is part of "broken and corrupt government", so they hardly have very large reserves of credibility to spare.


                        Originally posted by Evan
                        This is the realm of politics, not law ATL.
                        I agree with you more than you realize. The mandate itself was clearly in the realm of politics and not law. Joe asked for a mask mandate, and the CDC obliged him and spit one out less than a month later, procedures and laws be damned. Eviction Moratoriums 1.0 and 2.0 were the same thing, in fact in the case of 2.0 Joe himself had said it likely would not survive legal scrutiny (and it didn't). I'll refrain from commenting on the ethics of a sitting President advocating for something he himself doesn't believe is up to legal snuff.

                        In general, given the bastions of incompetence if not downright malice the last several administrations have been (notice I said several), what confounds me is why you WOULDN'T want them to be "hamstrung" at least a little. They've wreaked enough havoc even with being hamstrung, imagine what they could do if given free rein.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          we live in a democracy which means majority rules (for the most part).
                          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          p.s. if the minority is right the minority wins.
                          Right, so, democracy: the majority rule unless... they don't get to. Why does that not seem like democracy...

                          Majority want a mask mandate on airplanes. Minority uses procedural technicalities to thwart the majority will.

                          No, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a litigious nightmare.

                          Where the Center for Disease Control doesn't have the legal authority to control disease.

                          Originally posted by ATLcrew
                          the mandate itself that was "destructive precedent" and probably did more damage to the CDC's ability to "protect society" than the vacatur.
                          ATL, where were you when the hospitals and morgues were at a breaking point? And where will you be when it happens again? Because there will be other pandemics.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            sample...statistical...you need a refresher...Statistics is hard, most people don't understand it...meaningful sample size...correlation...not because of the sample size...because of design...how the questions are phrased, etc...)
                            Did you read anything that TeeVee said? You need a refresher in reading and inference. Yeah, he said "sample size" but he said a lot more.

                            Or is your point that you took stats and felt like spewing some knowledge on us that we didn't ask for?
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                              Did you read anything that TeeVee said? You need a refresher in reading and inference. Yeah, he said "sample size" but he said a lot more.

                              Or is your point that you took stats and felt like spewing some knowledge on us that we didn't ask for?
                              I read with attention EVERYTHING that TeeVee wrote in the post but, as I said in my reply to him...

                              I won't comment on the other points because I don't have a clear position myself.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                Right, so, emotion rules, to hell with logic...
                                Not putting words in your mouth...just doing some Devil's advocating/thought games.

                                Originally posted by Evan
                                Where the Center for Disease Control doesn't have the legal authority to control disease.
                                Are they trained in law or biology? (Admittedly, money and politics cloud this).
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X