# Judge Throws Out Federal Mask Mandate for Public Transportation



## Eric

A Trump appointee.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516098306916683781/


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> A Trump appointee.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516098306916683781/



Judges with no medical knowledge making medical decisions for the entire country. What a joke.

Somebody tell me what the point of having agencies for public health is if nobody listens to them? Some rogue judge has more power than the CDC?

The American experiment seems to be failing.


----------



## fooferdoggie

SuperMatt said:


> Judges with no medical knowledge making medical decisions for the entire country. What a joke.
> 
> Somebody tell me what the point of having agencies for public health is if nobody listens to them? Some rogue judge has more power than the CDC?
> 
> The American experiment seems to be failing.



well it is florida where the surgeon general is a antivaxxer so what can you expect?


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> Judges with no medical knowledge making medical decisions for the entire country. What a joke.
> 
> Somebody tell me what the point of having agencies for public health is if nobody listens to them? *Some rogue judge has more power than the CDC?*
> 
> The American experiment seems to be failing.



Yep, says far more about the system than it does this case, that's nuts.


----------



## Citysnaps

Pretty damn stupid considering the CDC is a federal organization and has far more insight than any judge regarding people coming into the US from other countries with varying infection rates, and of course, the current covid situation in the US.


----------



## fooferdoggie

citypix said:


> Pretty damn stupid considering the CDC is a federal organization and has far more insight than any judge regarding people coming into the US from other countries with varying infection rates, and of course, the current covid situation in the US.



I ma sure the judge has god on her side.


----------



## SuperMatt

The judge who made the decision was found to be unqualified by the American Bar Association. And yet Republicans confirmed this unqualified judge, with only 8 years as a lawyer, and zero trial experience.



			https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/2020-09-08chair-rating-letter-to-graham-and-feinstein-re-nomination-of-kathryn-kimball-mizelle.pdf?logActivity=true
		


This is banana republic bullshit. Putting unqualified partisan hacks into lifetime judge appointments? Nonsense rulings like this are the result.


----------



## AG_PhamD

Well, let’s be honest. There have been a lot of COVID-related policies, regulations, and laws enacted made by people with no medical or public health background. And medical and scientific opinions can vary. But frankly that’s irrelevant to this ruling.

The outcome of this case was purportedly decided on the CDC’s authority to continue extending the mask mandate and that the government failed to go through the process of public review required, not on the merits of masking versus not masking. The federal government could choose to seek a stay of the ruling, but appears they have chosen not to. Whether or not the judge’s decision decision is legally sound is way out of my expertise.

Operators of airlines (and other mass transportation methods) as far as I understand can still choose to mandate masks, they’re just not mandated to do so by the government. And pretty much all the airlines were the ones lobbying to end the masking.

People can still choose to wear masks as they see fit. Wearing an N95 is quite effective and presumably more so than everyone wearing a surgical mask.

COVID is here to stay. There is always going to be some risk with this disease or another. Eventually these mandates have to be pulled. It would have been smart for the CDC to set a metric publicly for when the bans can be lifted, it probably would have quelled a lot of those pushing against masks.

I don’t love the fact that a judge made this decision based on technicalities, but I don’t think lifting mask mandates on planes at this point is that unreasonable. They’ve been lifted just about everywhere else in society and a number of Western countries have already pulled airline masking laws. 

I would just hope if cases skyrocket again due to some new variant, there is a method in place to make sure airlines ensure their passengers are wearing masks.


----------



## SuperMatt

AG_PhamD said:


> Well, let’s be honest. There have been a lot of COVID-related policies, regulations, and laws enacted made by people with no medical or public health background. And medical and scientific opinions can vary. But frankly that’s irrelevant to this ruling.
> 
> The outcome of this case was purportedly decided on the CDC’s authority to continue extending the mask mandate and that the government failed to go through the process of public review required, not on the merits of masking versus not masking. The federal government could choose to seek a stay of the ruling, but appears they have chosen not to. Whether or not the judge’s decision decision is legally sound is way out of my expertise.
> 
> Operators of airlines (and other mass transportation methods) as far as I understand can still choose to mandate masks, they’re just not mandated to do so by the government. And pretty much all the airlines were the ones lobbying to end the masking.
> 
> People can still choose to wear masks as they see fit. Wearing an N95 is quite effective and presumably more so than everyone wearing a surgical mask.
> 
> COVID is here to stay. There is always going to be some risk with this disease or another. Eventually these mandates have to be pulled. It would have been smart for the CDC to set a metric publicly for when the bans can be lifted, it probably would have quelled a lot of those pushing against masks.
> 
> I don’t love the fact that a judge made this decision based on technicalities, but I don’t think lifting mask mandates on planes at this point is that unreasonable. They’ve been lifted just about everywhere else in society and a number of Western countries have already pulled airline masking laws.
> 
> I would just hope if cases skyrocket again due to some new variant, there is a method in place to make sure airlines ensure their passengers are wearing masks.



Not sure where to stat on this, because it contradicts itself more than once.

Judges shouldn’t make partisan rulings to override agencies with expert doctors looking out for the public good. Period.

Whether YOU think it’s time for masks to come off doesn’t matter. It’s up to the experts… or in this case, it’s not. It’s up to a lawyer who didn’t even meet the basic qualifications of the ABA to be a judge (but was rubber-stamped by GOP Senators anyway). THAT is the problem. If you want to dispute the merits of masking up at this time, try the COVID thread(s). This is about political hack-jobs making critical public health decisions instead of relying on the experts.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Judges shouldn’t make partisan rulings to override agencies with expert doctors looking out for the public good. Period.




So do you think governmental agencies should be able to set restrictions that they have no legal authority to set?


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> So do you think governmental agencies should be able to set restrictions that they have no legal authority to set?



No more than I think a judge with no medical background should be overruling actual infectious disease specialists at the CDC. As a whole, this system is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> So do you think governmental agencies should be able to set restrictions that they have no legal authority to set?



They do have the authority. That’s the reason they were created. Far-right judges keep trying to take away their powers in the name of freedom.

You have seen the far-right judiciary chip away at the powers of the EPA for decades… now it’s applying to OSHA and CDC too. It’s a travesty.


----------



## AG_PhamD

SuperMatt said:


> Not sure where to stat on this, because it contradicts itself more than once.
> 
> Judges shouldn’t make partisan rulings to override agencies with expert doctors looking out for the public good. Period.
> 
> Whether YOU think it’s time for masks to come off doesn’t matter. It’s up to the experts… or in this case, it’s not. It’s up to a lawyer who didn’t even meet the basic qualifications of the ABA to be a judge (but was rubber-stamped by GOP Senators anyway). THAT is the problem. If you want to dispute the merits of masking up at this time, try the COVID thread(s). This is about political hack-jobs making critical public health decisions instead of relying on the experts.




I wrote a response to this, but forget it. Can you ever respond to a post you disagree in a manner that’s not overly negative, rude, and petulant- often containing ad hominem attacks? Is this how you talk to people in real life?

Maybe “YOU” shouldn’t have an opinion on this because “YOU” don’t have a law degree. Nor should anyone that doesn’t understand the CDC is not consensus of all experts and that science/medicine often has conflicting opinions between experts. 

Or anyone who thinks a government agency should be above the law. How would you like it when the next Republican appoints a pro-life activist as the head of the CDC and deems all abortions bad for public health and the good of the public? I don’t know about you but I think that would be pretty bad.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> They do have the authority. That’s the reason they were created. Far-right judges keep trying to take away their powers in the name of freedom.




She didn't think they did.  Hence her ruling.  Not sure what difference it makes in this case given that the mandate expires in 2 weeks anyway.


----------



## SuperMatt

AG_PhamD said:


> Or anyone who thinks a government agency should be above the law. How would you like it when the next Republican appoints a pro-life activist as the head of the CDC and deems all abortions bad for public health and the good of the public? I don’t know about you but I think that would be pretty bad



The government agency… above the law? The agency was created by the law, to protect public health. The more judges try to chip away at the powers from such agencies, the worse for America.

Also, political appointees are not supposed to be able to override recommendations of the experts. That’s part of the way the LAW was written when making these agencies.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> She didn't think they did.  Hence her ruling.  Not sure what difference it makes in this case given that the mandate expires in 2 weeks anyway.



Yes, she thought that. Which is why there are posts here pointing out that she didn’t even meet the basic requirements of the ABA to become a judge.

Both parties should require that judges, who get a lifetime appointment, meet at least the most basic requirements of the ABA - 12 years as a lawyer and experience in trials. This judge had 8 years as a lawyer and zero trial experience in her life. And she’s made a public health decision affecting millions. That is ridiculous by any measure.


----------



## quagmire

I’m of two opinions here. First I’m not an anti-masker. But same time, I’m glad it is gone. As been pointed out earlier, mask requirements have been dropping every where, yet it seemed like the mask requirement for transportation was just being kicked down the road until the next surge occurred to justify further extending it. 

But! What we all should care about is was the legal basis for the judge striking it down sound? As much as I’m glad it’s gone, it’s troubling if the judge was grasping at straws to strike it down.


----------



## JayMysteri0

quagmire said:


> I’m of two opinions here. First I’m not an anti-masker. But same time, I’m glad it is gone. As been pointed out earlier, mask requirements have been dropping every where, yet it seemed like the mask requirement for transportation was just being kicked down the road until the next surge occurred to justify further extending it.
> 
> But! What we all should care about is was the legal basis for the judge striking it down sound? As much as I’m glad it’s gone, it’s troubling if the judge was grasping at straws to strike it down.



From what I understand, she didn't even really try to grasp for any straws.

She also threw it out for the country, not only her district in Florida.  On the logic that it couldn't be lifted for just the people involved in the actual lawsuit.  Any conservatives applauding this will be showing their asses when they later cry again about activist judges.

The wider range is that it also lifts the mandate on public transportation nationwide, where far more people were likely to be infected and / or where.  Fortunately the option for organizations to keep the mandate is still in place.  Which is what NY Public transit is doing.


----------



## quagmire

JayMysteri0 said:


> From what I understand, she didn't even really try to grasp for any straws.
> 
> She also threw it out for the country, not only her district in Florida.  On the logic that it couldn't be lifted for just the people involved in the actual lawsuit.  Any conservatives applauding this will be showing their asses when they later cry again about activist judges.
> 
> The wider range is that it also lifts the mandate on public transportation nationwide, where far more people were likely to be infected and / or where.  Fortunately the option for organizations to keep the mandate is still in place.  Which is what NY Public transit is doing.




Oh I agree with the conservatives lauding this are hypocrites. A decision they like they laud as a win for freedom. A decision they don’t like is judicial activism. Already see ton of people claiming a judge having common sense. Sorry common sense doesn’t play into the law. If it was a power the agency/government has, it is a legal mandate. Common sense or not.


----------



## SuperMatt

AG_PhamD said:


> Can you ever respond to a post you disagree in a manner that’s not overly negative, rude, and petulant- often containing ad hominem attacks? Is this how you talk to people in real life?



1. If that’s how my posts come across, then the answer is apparently no.

2. I am real and alive. So yes.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> And she’s made a public health decision affecting millions. That is ridiculous by any measure.




And yet the Administration has yet to appeal.  They could have requested a stay from her or from the Appeals court.

Wonder why?  Or why not?



JayMysteri0 said:


> She also threw it out for the country, not only her district in Florida.  On the logic that it couldn't be lifted for just the people involved in the actual lawsuit.




I will say that I don't think District Judges should be able to create rulings that affect the entire country.  Only their District same as Appeals Court rulings.  

Don't think either side would be happy with that, so its probably a good idea.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Herdfan said:


> And yet the Administration has yet to appeal.  They could have requested a stay from her or from the Appeals court.
> 
> Wonder why?  Or why not?



because the cdc was close to dropping it.


----------



## Herdfan

fooferdoggie said:


> because the cdc was close to dropping it.




Maybe.  But they probably should challenge the ruling in case they want to reimpose it.


----------



## SuperMatt

fooferdoggie said:


> because the cdc was close to dropping it.



I also think the reasoning in the ruling is absurd; many paragraphs spent pontificating about the definition of “sanitation” and a bizarre fixation on just a small excerpt of the law that created the CDC. Then, cherry-pick a few past cases to supposedly back up the opinion, et voila! You’re a judge! I read through it, and I believe there’s little chance it will stand as precedent. Since the pandemic started, this is the first judge to shut down the mask mandate on public transportation, so you can see what an outlier this is.

Challenging it would be a waste of time and resources for basically no reward. If a new deadly wave of COVID-19 or another disease comes along, they can handle it then.


----------



## SuperMatt

What to know about Judge Kathryn Mizelle, who struck down the travel mask mandate
					

Mizelle was nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2020 at age 33. The American Bar Association said at the time she wasn't qualified because she hadn't been practicing law for long enough.




					www.npr.org
				




In short: a 33-year old with a spouse working for the Trump administration and a history of far-right legal activism, and ZERO trial experience gets a lifetime appointment. Enjoy 50 more years of extreme ideological decisions from this woman.

Oh, and by the way, she filed an amicus brief against OSHA COVID emergency rules to protect workers before becoming a judge... but didn’t recuse herself from this. So she already had her mind made up on this before she even got the case.


----------



## Alli

I don’t care. I will continue to wear my mask.


----------



## MEJHarrison

Alli said:


> I don’t care. I will continue to wear my mask.




Same here.  As dumb as I think this ruling is, it won't stop me from wearing mine.


----------



## DT

Alli said:


> I don’t care. I will continue to wear my mask.




If the flight crew would've come out on our weekend+ trip we just took and dropped the "_Congrats, you don't have to wear your mask_", I would've been more than happy to tell them to f*** off, I'm wearing mine


----------



## Herdfan

Alli said:


> I don’t care. I will continue to wear my mask.




Exactly.

I would love to see a study comparing 2 people wearing cloth masks vs 1 person wearing an N95.  Plenty of studies showing N95 is better, but what I want to see is whether a person wearing an N95 is better protected when around someone not wearing a mask vs 2 people each wearing cloth.


----------



## Citysnaps

Herdfan said:


> I would love to see a study comparing 2 people wearing cloth masks vs 1 person wearing an N95. Plenty of studies showing N95 is better, but what I want to see is whether a person wearing an N95 is better protected when around someone not wearing a mask vs 2 people each wearing cloth.




In the past I've seen such charts by the CDC, IIRC (I'll try and find one). And two people masked was substantially better than one.


----------



## Herdfan

citypix said:


> In the past I've seen such charts by the CDC, IIRC (I'll try and find one). And two people masked was substantially better than one.




Two people with cloth masks vs 1 with cloth, sure.  But what if the 1 was wearing an N95?  

Basically the question is if someone is wearing an N95, does it matter what anyone else is doing?


----------



## Citysnaps

Herdfan said:


> Two people with cloth masks vs 1 with cloth, sure.  But what if the 1 was wearing an N95?
> 
> Basically the question is if someone is wearing an N95, does it matter what anyone else is doing?




Here's a chart that I found that plays one person infected against another person non-infected, for different types of masks. There's a better chart out there. The flaw with this one is it was published before the Omicron variant, which is more infectious/virulent, was in the wild. So I suspect the absolute times are less. The ratios?  Maybe or maybe not the same.

In other words, not something I'd rely on.  Still safe to say if I was wearing an N95 mask on a plane, and had an infected person sitting next to me without a mask, I'd definitely be nervous. If they were sneezing?   Yikes!

I think a for-sure take-away is wear a high quality (3M, Honeywell, etc) N95 mask and keep it sealed tight. 

EDIT: No mention if the uninfected person is vaccinated and to what level.   And, no mention about distance between infected and uninfected people, air flow/replacement, etc.  So..... beats me.


----------



## SuperMatt

The justice department is considering challenging the ruling against the mask mandate.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516541173799788554/


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> The justice department is considering challenging the ruling against the mask mandate.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516541173799788554/




I think they have to.  Because if they don't, they can't simply reinstate it if necessary.  So they need a ruling in their favor.


----------



## SuperMatt

I thought Ruth Marcus summed it up pretty well in her column today:



> Maybe it’s time to end the mask mandate for airplanes, trains and public transport. Maybe it’s prudent to keep it in place. I’m not sure, but I do know this: That decision should be made by federal policymakers — not by a single district court judge who was ideologically predisposed to strike down the mask rule and who then contorted the law to achieve that goal.




Perhaps the law needs to be strengthened? Imagine how many more deaths we would have had if she issued this ruling at the beginning of the pandemic and stopped all preventative measures?

If we are going to have a CDC, they need to have some teeth to impose restrictions during emergencies especially. Otherwise, why are we spending tax dollars on them in the first place?

The far-right activist judges seem to buy into the “all government is bad” belief. All government, that is, except them of course. They will gladly keep their lifetime job, use it to promote their political agenda, and cash those government checks twice a month.

Her conclusion is quite biting…



> This is advocacy masquerading as lawgiving. Somin is more sympathetic to Mizelle than I am, but consider his assessment: “At times, Judge Mizelle’s opinion reads as if she is taking a kitchen sink approach to defending her ruling — throwing out every argument she can, good, bad, or indifferent. This strategy makes sense in high school debate, and perhaps for some legal briefs. But it isn’t a good idea for judges ruling on a case, especially an important one.”


----------



## MEJHarrison

SuperMatt said:


> The justice department is considering challenging the ruling against the mask mandate.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516541173799788554/




"The Department of Justice... will appeal, _*subject to CDC's conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health.*_"  That's how it SHOULD be!

I must say, if at the end of the day doctors are able overturn the judge's ruling (though the DOJ), that would be hilarious. And appropriate given that the judge feels qualified to overturn the advice of medical experts on a public health issue.


----------



## SuperMatt

MEJHarrison said:


> "The Department of Justice... will appeal, _*subject to CDC's conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health.*_"  That's how it SHOULD be!
> 
> I must say, if at the end of the day doctors are able overturn the judge's ruling (though the DOJ), that would be hilarious. And appropriate given that the judge feels qualified to overturn the advice of medical experts on a public health issue.



I heard on the radio this morning that the DoJ is reluctant to appeal because if they lose the appeal, that could be considered a precedent. If that happens, it could mean the CDC would have less power to prevent future health crises.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I heard on the radio this morning that the DoJ is reluctant to appeal because if they lose the appeal, that could be considered a precedent. If that happens, it could mean the CDC would have less power to prevent future health crises.




How is that any different that the current situation?  I understand the reluctance, but they need this overturned.


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> I heard on the radio this morning that the DoJ is reluctant to appeal because if they lose the appeal, that could be considered a precedent. If that happens, it could mean the CDC would have less power to prevent future health crises.



Makes no sense. It’s already a precedent.


----------



## SuperMatt

Cmaier said:


> Makes no sense. It’s already a precedent.



According to legal experts quoted below, appeals court decisions have more weight than the decision of a single judge when it comes to precedent. 



> Mizelle's opinion also restricts the CDC's ability to respond to public health emergencies in ways it deems appropriate, and if the opinion is upheld by a federal appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts warn it could hobble the government's ability to control future outbreaks.
> 
> "If this particular type of opinion took on greater precedential value as it rises up through the court system, if that happens, it's big trouble for CDC down the road," said James Hodge, a law professor at Arizona State University.



More info in the full article:









						The judge who tossed mask mandate misunderstood public health law, legal experts say
					

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle's decision hinged on a definition of the word 'sanitation' that public health experts and legal scholars say missed the mark.




					www.npr.org


----------



## JayMysteri0

Because timing is everything of course...



> New Omicron Subvariants Take Hold As Biden Wants Americans To Learn To Live With COVID
> 
> 
> The new BA.2.12.1 variant accounted for 19% of COVID cases in the U.S. last week, sharply increasing its spread from the week before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com





> New versions of Omicron variant make gains against BA.2
> 
> 
> Arguably the most successful version of the Omicron coronavirus variant to date has been BA.2 -- but it hasn't been resting on its laurels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> According to legal experts quoted below, appeals court decisions have more weight than the decision of a single judge when it comes to precedent.
> 
> 
> More info in the full article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The judge who tossed mask mandate misunderstood public health law, legal experts say
> 
> 
> Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle's decision hinged on a definition of the word 'sanitation' that public health experts and legal scholars say missed the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org




Appeals courts are only dispositive in the circuit that issued the opinion.  District court opinions are only dispositive in that district. That is true. So in 99% of the country, the current ruling has the same dispositive effect, which is that it is persuasive but not dispositive.


----------



## SuperMatt

They are officially appealing the ruling now.

They say the DoJ sought the advice of the CDC before proceeding.

I can see this two ways.

1. Most legal experts believe this ruling is poorly reasoned and would be quickly overturned. So this seems like a good idea.
2. The current Supreme Court is stacked with conservatives who have previously disregarded public health in favor of partisan ideology.

I hope #1 comes to pass; the ruling seems quite bad, and hopefully cooler heads will prevail and toss it out.


----------



## Herdfan

The Biden Administration does not have a good record in court.  They have been smacked down several times for exceeding their authority, including once by SCOTUS 9-0.  No partisan ideology there for sure.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> The Biden Administration does not have a good record in court.  They have been smacked down several times for exceeding their authority, including once by SCOTUS 9-0.  No partisan ideology there for sure.



I would argue that an appointed partisan hack with no medical background taking away the authority of trained professionals at the CDC is a travesty of justice. Still, the original ruling was legal, as is an appeal. IMO the Biden administration was right to get the buy off from the CDC before making the call.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> The Biden Administration does not have a good record in court.  They have been smacked down several times for exceeding their authority, including once by SCOTUS 9-0.  No partisan ideology there for sure.



It’s not a game. But many people seem to think it’s a sport… including some judges. You can see why the DoJ is reluctant to appeal even a ruling as nonsensical as this one.

When one tosses out nonsense like this, implying it’s some kind of contest, and ignores the law completely, they are part of the problem. Trump appealed to people that wanted judges who would “smack down” the liberals, regardless of the law.

With Ms. Mizelle, it looks like “mission accomplished” to me.

In the current environment, it is *democracy* that is being “smacked down” by extremist judges.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516815663343431682/


----------



## quagmire

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516815663343431682/




Wow in a matter of one day? Call BS on that one........


----------



## mollyc

the date of that article is 4/11.


----------



## DT

quagmire said:


> Wow in a matter of one day? Call BS on that one........




Note the date of the report (April 11), and in the article it says, "overseas airlines", so this was not a US result from the last couple of days - however, it may be a good predictor of what happens here over the next few weeks.


----------



## Eric

Thought I would share this from my buddy as he was leaving town yesterday.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Interesting that a bunch of Bay Area transit authorities dropped their mask mandates today. Guess they were really itching for the federal mandate to be dropped.


----------



## Eric

TBL said:


> Interesting that a bunch of Bay Area transit authorities dropped their mask mandates today. Guess they were really itching for the federal mandate to be dropped.



It's hard not to understand their elation but it feels like we've all been given a false sense of hope by figures of authority when in reality it's really just a partisan Donald Trump appointee who made the call.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> It's hard not to understand their elation but it feels like we've all been given a false sense of hope by figures of authority when in reality it's really just a partisan Donald Trump appointee who made the call.



Thank you. It would have really meant something if the change was based on scientific data and an explanation was given. Instead, an inexperienced lawyer played games, trying to redefine the word “sanitation“ in an opinion that is worse than many undergraduate term papers.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Thank you. It would have really meant something if the change was based on scientific data and an explanation was given. Instead, an inexperienced lawyer played games, trying to redefine the word “sanitation“ in an opinion that is worse than many undergraduate term papers.



I figure you will disagree, but judges should not be considering scientific data or any other health related issues.  Was the mandate legal?  Yes or No!



Eric said:


> It's hard not to understand their elation but it feels like we've all been given a false sense of hope by figures of authority when in reality it's really just a partisan Donald Trump appointee who made the call.




How do you feel about the Trump appointee who just blocked Kentucky's abortion law?  Not all judges are political hacks or rule in partisan ways.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I figure you will disagree, but judges should not be considering scientific data or any other health related issues.  Was the mandate legal?  Yes or No!



The mandate is legal. Every other judge upheld it for the last 2 years. This judge is an extreme outlier. I posted a link to multiple legal experts pointing out her flawed ruling. If you have a counterargument from lawyers or legal experts, I’d like to read it. Otherwise, let’s go with: the CDC’s mandate is clearly within its authority.



Herdfan said:


> How do you feel about the Trump appointee who just blocked Kentucky's abortion law?  Not all judges are political hacks or rule in partisan ways.



Roe v Wade is still the law of the land, as it has been for almost 50 years. And I agree that not all judges are political hacks. But the judge in the mask mandate case IS. There’s been copious amounts of evidence to that effect in this thread, and I haven’t seen any to the contrary.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> The mandate is legal. Every other judge upheld it for the last 2 years. This judge is an extreme outlier. I posted a link to multiple legal experts pointing out her flawed ruling. If you have a counterargument from lawyers or legal experts, I’d like to read it. Otherwise, let’s go with: the CDC’s mandate is clearly within its authority.




It may be.  But that is still a legal, and not medical question.  So blaming the judge for ignoring the medical aspects misses the point.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> It may be.  But that is still a legal, and not medical question.  So blaming the judge for ignoring the medical aspects misses the point.



If you read my takedown(s) of the judge, the arguments are not about the her medical training or lack thereof.

Congress created an agency to be staffed by medical experts. This agency is meant to protect public health. Instead of allowing the agency to do its job, a single unqualified judge decided to throw away all precedent and block the agency’s mask mandate. Such blatant judicial activism is harmful, and renders Congress and the CDC impotent. The sooner this terrible ruling gets overturned, the better.

My response to @AG_PhamD said the same thing. This is not about whether he (or I) think mask mandates should be extended or ended. It’s about allowing the experts at the CDC to do their job: protecting America’s public health. Otherwise, why are we spending tax money on the CDC at all?


----------



## DT

SuperMatt said:


> Otherwise, why are we spending tax money on the CDC at all?




Exactly.  Medical experts are charlatans, we should take that money and fund the purchase of rocket launchers and attack helicopters for the police.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> If you read my takedown(s) of the judge, the arguments are not about the her medical training or lack thereof.
> 
> Congress created an agency to be staffed by medical experts. This agency is meant to protect public health. Instead of allowing the agency to do its job, a single unqualified judge decided to throw away all precedent and block the agency’s mask mandate. Such blatant judicial activism is harmful, and renders Congress and the CDC impotent. The sooner this terrible ruling gets overturned, the better.
> 
> My response to @AG_PhamD said the same thing. This is not about whether he (or I) think mask mandates should be extended or ended. It’s about allowing the experts at the CDC to do their job: protecting America’s public health. Otherwise, why are we spending tax money on the CDC at all?




 So the CDC should be able to do what they want, when they want, even if it runs counter to the law simply because of their stated purpose?


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> So the CDC should be able to do what they want, when they want, even if it runs counter to the law simply because of their stated purpose?



I never said that. And you know it. Again, if you can find a single legal expert who thinks this judge properly interpreted the law, let’s see it. Then we can discuss that instead of you tossing out bombs.

As they say: put up or shut up.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I never said that. And you know it. Again, if you can find a single legal expert who thinks this judge properly interpreted the law, let’s see it. Then we can discuss that instead of you tossing out bombs.
> 
> As they say: put up or shut up.




I am not a lawyer.  So I have no idea if her reasoning was sound. 

But you posted the purpose of the CDC.  What does that have to do with the case?  If they exceeded their authority, they exceeded their authority and their purpose is irrelevant.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I am not a lawyer.  So I have no idea if her reasoning was sound.
> 
> But you posted the purpose of the CDC.  What does that have to do with the case?  If they exceeded their authority, they exceeded their authority and their purpose is irrelevant.




Here is why the purpose of the CDC matters. The purpose is written directly into the law; preventing the spread of communicable diseases. It therefore IS the LAW. And yet the judge doesn’t seem to consider that part of the law. All she considered was a single paragraph, and then decided to redefine a word in that paragraph, and disregard some other words she didn’t like to come to a tortured reasoning that convinced nobody except anti-mask true believers who don’t care whether her reasoning is sound or not.



> Specifically, the law says that *if the government is trying to prevent the spread of communicable diseases*, it can "provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary."
> 
> The administration argued that masks qualified as "sanitation" under the law, but Mizelle disagreed, opting for a much narrower definition of the term that would exclude measures like face coverings. Legal experts say her interpretation missed the mark.
> 
> "If one of my students turned in this opinion as their final exam, I don't know if I would agree that they had gotten the analysis correct," said Erin Fuse Brown, a law professor at Georgia State University.
> 
> "It reads like someone who had decided the case and then tried to dress it up as legal reasoning without actually doing the legal reasoning," she added.



I added the bold to show why the purpose of a law, especially when it is written into the law, is necessary to properly interpret it. In this case, the CDC only has the power in the first place because it is trying to prevent the spread of a communicable disease. So it couldn’t send out a mask mandate just because it thinks people look better that way. Hopefully this can show you why the purpose is critical.


----------



## Spike

Having left the US a little over four years ago, I only saw the pandemic response remotely. What is appalling to me (and most people where I now live) is that a judge with no medical knowledge and even less judicial experience can change health measures immediately. In the country where I now live, we have very specific metrics set by national health professionals for every change that can happen. We just had a partial lift on the mask mandate due to death rates and ICU beds filled. The only way a judge could overrule this would be due to action being taken that did not follow the metrics. All of this discussion about what can be done arises from the lack of an actual public health policy with legal control.

The vaccine rollout here was very deliberate, all vaccinations delivered by the health service and every single resident was notified when to go for each vaccination. There are no communities that had less access.

What this points out is that the US has no real health policy, which does, of course, open up the potential for even worse problems in the future. I don't know how this can be fixed, my own cynical view is that the US needs a complete restructuring, i.e., a new constitution, before there can be reasonable efforts.


----------



## Herdfan

Spike said:


> In the country where I now live, we have very specific metrics set by national health professionals for every change that can happen.




We did not.  Some states, including mine, tried.  But sometimes if they didn't get the results they wanted, they changed the metrics.  Basically made them useless.

We definitely needed them.  Not really sure why the CDC didn't have a plan to deal with a pandemic.  It is like they know the science, but completely whiffed on the human component.


----------



## Roller

Herdfan said:


> We did not.  Some states, including mine, tried.  But sometimes if they didn't get the results they wanted, they changed the metrics.  Basically made them useless.
> 
> We definitely needed them.  Not really sure why the CDC didn't have a plan to deal with a pandemic.  It is like they know the science, but completely whiffed on the human component.



The Obama administration did have a plan, but it was ignored by the Trump administration. The CDC hasn't done a stellar job under Biden, but there's no comparison to the dysfunctional mess of a response under the Trump administration, which included appointing people like Scott Atlas, who had no relevant expertise, and the president advocating dangerous approaches. And anything the CDC now does is so politicized that the likelihood of their guidance being followed is low, especially in states like Florida, where the surgeon general violates his oath as a physician every time he speaks.


----------



## Herdfan

Roller said:


> The Obama administration did have a plan, but it was ignored by the Trump administration. The CDC hasn't done a stellar job under Biden, but there's no comparison to the dysfunctional mess of a response under the Trump administration, which included appointing people like Scott Atlas, who had no relevant expertise, and the president advocating dangerous approaches. And anything the CDC now does is so politicized that the likelihood of their guidance being followed is low, especially in states like Florida, where the surgeon general violates his oath as a physician every time he speaks.




The CDC should have had metrics sitting on a shelf no matter who was President.  

I bet the military has a battle plan sitting there in case Canada invades us, but the CDC doesn't have a set of metrics for an airborne disease?


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Not really sure why the CDC didn't have a plan to deal with a pandemic.



Let’s go back in time... all the way to 2018:









						Sudden Departure Of White House Global Health Security Head Has Experts Worried
					

Rear Adm. Tim Ziemer is among the departures since John Bolton became head of the National Security Council.




					www.huffpost.com
				




We had a part of the National Security Council specifically set up to handle a global pandemic... and Trump (through John Bolton) disbanded it. And if you read that 2018 article, you can see many dire warnings about how this would hurt our pandemic response. They turned out to be very prescient.

Many agencies have to work together to handle a pandemic; the CDC cannot do it on their own.


----------



## Roller

Herdfan said:


> The CDC should have had metrics sitting on a shelf no matter who was President.
> 
> I bet the military has a battle plan sitting there in case Canada invades us, but the CDC doesn't have a set of metrics for an airborne disease?



A specific set of metrics for a new disease about which the science was changing daily? That's not how it works. But there were people at the CDC, like Nancy Messonnier, who sounded the alarm in February 2020 and were forced to leave. Had the administration paid attention to her and followed the playbook that was left for them instead of insisting the pandemic would end quickly and throwing responsibility to the states, many lives would have been saved.


----------



## SuperMatt

Here is some more insight into why the DoJ is slow-rolling their response to this judge’s ruling. It involves underwear?









						Why the government's slow move to appeal the mask decision may be a legal strategy
					

One law professor has a theory about the Justice Department's slow response — and it all goes back to a case involving "heavy knitted underwear" from the 1940s.




					www.npr.org
				






> The CDC's mask requirement on planes, trains and other modes of transportation was set to expire May 3anyway. Without a mask mandate in effect, in appealing the case, Vladeck says, "the government can say, 'Look, we're not going to have a chance to argue why Judge Mizelle's ruling was incorrect. Therefore, the proper thing to do is to wipe that ruling off the books and just dismiss this entire lawsuit.' "





> This idea goes back to a lawsuit involving Munsingwear, a Minnesota-based underwear company. In the mid-1940s, the government sued the company, alleging it was violating wartime price regulations by overpricing its "heavy knitted underwear," according to news reports from the time. But it took years for the case took to go through the appeals process, and by then the products were no longer subject to price controls, so the controversy was moot.
> 
> Enter the Munsingwear doctrine, which the Supreme Court established in its 1950 United States v. Munsingwear decision. Basically, when a dispute becomes moot during the appeals process, the appellate court should generally vacate the lower court's ruling.



Basically, if they wait this out, it could be as if the ruling never happened.


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> Here is some more insight into why the DoJ is slow-rolling their response to this judge’s ruling. It involves underwear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the government's slow move to appeal the mask decision may be a legal strategy
> 
> 
> One law professor has a theory about the Justice Department's slow response — and it all goes back to a case involving "heavy knitted underwear" from the 1940s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, if they wait this out, it could be as if the ruling never happened.




Maybe. But there’s also a doctrine that if the issue is the sort of issue that, by its nature, comes and goes relatively quickly (as compared to the judicial process), then there actually really is a case or controversy that needs to be resolved. So the counter-argument is that, because of covid variants, the CDC may need to reinstitute the restrictions at any time.  So


----------



## BigMcGuire

The Metro here in Southern CA was quick to not require masks and then, .... require them again just a few days later.





UCLA doesn't require masks anymore for fully vaccinated but a lot of people still wear them when in close quarters like a lab.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Basically, if they wait this out, it could be as if the ruling never happened.




That may work, but in the case of Munsingwear, the situation wasn't going to be repeated.  In this case, the CDC has specifically stated they need this overturned in case they want to do it again.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> That may work, but in the case of Munsingwear, the situation wasn't going to be repeated.  In this case, the CDC has specifically stated they need this overturned in case they want to do it again.



You are missing how this works.

They slow-roll the appeal until the mask ban would have expired anyway (sometime in May I believe?). The appeal gets to the appeals court and is overturned because it is now a moot point.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> You are missing how this works.
> 
> They slow-roll the appeal until the mask ban would have expired anyway (sometime in May I believe?). The appeal gets to the appeals court and is overturned because it is now a moot point.




Is it overturned or vacated?  

From the article you posted:



> Enter the Munsingwear doctrine, which the Supreme Court established in its 1950 United States v. Munsingwear decision. Basically, when a dispute becomes moot during the appeals process, the appellate court should generally* vacate the lower court's ruling*.




Vacate means it didn't happen.  So that same judge could simply hear the case again and rule the same way starting the process all over again.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Is it overturned or vacated?
> 
> From the article you posted:
> 
> 
> 
> Vacate means it didn't happen.  So that same judge could simply hear the case again and rule the same way starting the process all over again.



Yes, vacated - meaning it doesn’t even count as precedent - which is a very good outcome for preserving the CDC’s powers.

As for the exact same judge getting the same lawsuit, anything is possible. In fact, monkeys could also fly out of my butt.


----------



## Cmaier

Herdfan said:


> That may work, but in the case of Munsingwear, the situation wasn't going to be repeated.  In this case, the CDC has specifically stated they need this overturned in case they want to do it again.



Agreed. As I mentioned above, there is a legal principle that if a situation is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” then the court should address it, regardless of the fact that, at the moment, it might appear to be moot.

This situation here - between waves of variants there is little need for masking on planes, but the day after the appeals court might vacate the lower court’s opinion a new variant could show up - is the type of situation where the Supreme Court, among other courts, has applied this principle.

Little chance an appeals court does not address the merits.


----------



## Roller

Ending the mask mandate on public transportation will be detrimental from a public health perspective. The newest strains of SARS-CoV-2 have been increasingly transmissible, with the only saving grace being that their virulence seems to be less than for pre-Omicron variants. Even on aircraft, which tend to have effective air filtration, there's a risk to passengers while the plane is on the ground, not to mention while waiting in line or in the jetway. Buses and trains are even worse.

That this has become dominated by politics and legal arguments demonstrates the monumental selfishness of many Americans, who don't care if they transmit to people who can't be protected by vaccines because of age or diminished immunity.


----------



## Cmaier

Roller said:


> Ending the mask mandate on public transportation will be detrimental from a public health perspective. The newest strains of SARS-CoV-2 have been increasingly transmissible, with the only saving grace being that their virulence seems to be less than for pre-Omicron variants. Even on aircraft, which tend to have effective air filtration, there's a risk to passengers while the plane is on the ground, not to mention while waiting in line or in the jetway. Buses and trains are even worse.
> 
> That this has become dominated by politics and legal arguments demonstrates the monumental selfishness of many Americans, who don't care if they transmit to people who can't be protected by vaccines because of age or diminished immunity.




I think it will have little statistical effect. The average annual time spent by a person on an airplane is far less than the average time a person now spends unmasked in restaurants and other locations.  And not every locale is removing mask requirements on local public transportation (which the judge has no say over).  

That said, the problem from my perspective is that if you have to travel cross-country, now, you have little opportunity to protect yourself. You can wear a mask yourself, which provides some protection, but if the person sitting next to you is infected and coughing the whole time, what are you supposed to do?

Airlines could have chosen to keep the mandate, or to designate flights as masked, or require testing, etc. But they chose not to. So I say fuck the airlines.


----------



## Roller

Cmaier said:


> I think it will have little statistical effect. The average annual time spent by a person on an airplane is far less than the average time a person now spends unmasked in restaurants and other locations.  And not every locale is removing mask requirements on local public transportation (which the judge has no say over).
> 
> That said, the problem from my perspective is that if you have to travel cross-country, now, you have little opportunity to protect yourself. You can wear a mask yourself, which provides some protection, but if the person sitting next to you is infected and coughing the whole time, what are you supposed to do?
> 
> Airlines could have chosen to keep the mandate, or to designate flights as masked, or require testing, etc. But they chose not to. So I say fuck the airlines.



We probably will never know the magnitude of the effect because so many cases go unrecognized or unreported and because there is essentially zero contact tracing. As you say, some jurisdictions are maintaining their mask mandates, but continual flip-flops, the strike-down of the federal public transportation requirement (even if is reversed), and the general attitude of the public, mean that more transmission will occur on airplanes, trains, and buses. 

The best course of action for those who need to fly cross-country is to wear a high quality N95 or equivalent mask, which lessens the risk. It'd be fun to sit next to an unmasked adult on a plane, hack away during the flight, and tell them it's just TB when they ask. 

I think it'd be tough for the airlines to maintain masking and/or vaccination requirements if the federal government doesn't mandate them. But I definitely condemn them for announcing the end of the mask mandate mid-flight, as some did. That was extraordinarily unfair and potentially injurious to passengers who boarded with the expectation that others would wear masks throughout the flight. I'd pay a premium to fly on designated masked/vaccine-proofed flights, but I doubt that will happen.

I shudder to think what will happen if a future SARS-CoV-2 variant or other pathogen is not only highly transmissible, but also more likely to cause severe illness or death.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Yes, vacated - meaning it doesn’t even count as precedent - which is a very good outcome for preserving the CDC’s powers.
> 
> As for the exact same judge getting the same lawsuit, anything is possible. In fact, monkeys could also fly out of my butt.




Yes vacated means it basically didn't exist.  So the same or even a new judge could come to the same conclusion.

But had it been overruled, then no judge in that district can re-implement the ban.  This would be a much more favorable outcome.


----------



## Cmaier

Herdfan said:


> Yes vacated means it basically didn't exist.  So the same or even a new judge could come to the same conclusion.
> 
> But had it been overruled, then no judge in that district can re-implement the ban.  This would be a much more favorable outcome.




Yep. Either you think CDC has the authority or you think they don’t. (They do, btw). If you think they do, then you appeal and play to win - you want the ruling overturned on the merits, not vacated on procedural grounds.  If you think they don’t, then you don’t appeal.  At least if the only thing at play is legal strategy.  Politics adds a whole layer on top of that. 

There are also additional legal considerations - overturning it at the appellate level only is precedential for that particular circuit. So whether you win or lose, you can get a new case in the future in some other circuit (e.g. somewhere in Texas), and the court (and relevant appellate court) may reach a different conclusion.  The only way to get absolute certainty is if it goes to the Supreme Court, but that would take a very long time.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1518356998059819008/
 TESTIFY!!!


----------



## Alli

It’s important everywhere. Not just planes and trains. I went to donate blood today (will have to return Wednesday after 2 days without my baby aspirin) and while the staff was masked, and the sign on the door asked to please wear a mask, none of the donors were masked…except me.


----------



## SuperMatt

Another detailed explanation of how dangerous the judge’s ruling in this case is.









						Opinion | No Matter How You Feel About Masks, You Should Be Alarmed by This Judge’s Decision
					

The ruling could prevent the federal government from nimbly responding to future pandemics.




					www.nytimes.com
				



(paywall removed)

The argument in a nutshell:



> Judge Mizelle lacks experience or expertise in public health. The C.D.C., conversely, is staffed by virologists, epidemiologists and other highly respected scientists accountable to the president, who in turn can be held to account by the public. A constitutional democracy is challenged when a lone judge, lacking competence in public health, can unilaterally dismantle a nationwide public health policy during a crisis. We can’t think of a worse way for Covid-era masking to end than at the hand of a single federal judge sitting in the Middle District of Florida.


----------



## SuperMatt

So, another Trump-appointed judge rules that COVID-19 restrictions still ARE needed, despite the CDC saying they no longer are. But this time, it has to do with brown people crossing the border.

Somebody please explain to me how these conservative judges (both appointed by Trump) can:

1. Justify blocking a mask mandate on the grounds that the CDC exceeded their authority
2. Require that CDC-created COVID-19 restrictions stay in place at the border.

They are showing their  to the world with these 2 blatantly contradictory rulings. The law and constitution do not matter. It’s all about the politics. Shame on these JINOs. (Judge in Name Only). It’s not whether the CDC has the authority to act: it’s about whether these partisan hacks personally agree with the choices made by the CDC. And if they don’t? 

Also, this is more than once that right-wing courts have put limits on executive authority. Something they were FAR more reluctant to do when Trump was in the White House. Please explain to me how one president can enact a policy, and judges can tell the next president “you can’t change that.” ???? Maybe these judges are true Q-Anon believers who think Trump still is President.

The behavior of conservative activist JINOs is VERY concerning. Again, this is pretty much the opposite of democracy.









						Judge blocks U.S. border officials from winding down Title 42 expulsion policy
					

Since its inception in March 2020, the Title 42 authority has allowed U.S. authorities along the Mexican border to expel migrants over 1.8 million times to Mexico.




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> So, another Trump-appointed judge rules that COVID-19 restrictions still ARE needed, despite the CDC saying they no longer are. But this time, it has to do with brown people crossing the border.
> 
> Somebody please explain to me how these conservative judges (both appointed by Trump) can:
> 
> 1. Justify blocking a mask mandate on the grounds that the CDC exceeded their authority
> 2. Require that CDC-created COVID-19 restrictions stay in place at the border.
> 
> They are showing their  to the world with these 2 blatantly contradictory rulings. The law and constitution do not matter. It’s all about the politics. Shame on these JINOs. (Judge in Name Only). It’s not whether the CDC has the authority to act: it’s about whether these partisan hacks personally agree with the choices made by the CDC. And if they don’t?
> 
> Also, this is more than once that right-wing courts have put limits on executive authority. Something they were FAR more reluctant to do when Trump was in the White House. Please explain to me how one president can enact a policy, and judges can tell the next president “you can’t change that.” ???? Maybe these judges are true Q-Anon believers who think Trump still is President.
> 
> The behavior of conservative activist JINOs is VERY concerning. Again, this is pretty much the opposite of democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judge blocks U.S. border officials from winding down Title 42 expulsion policy
> 
> 
> Since its inception in March 2020, the Title 42 authority has allowed U.S. authorities along the Mexican border to expel migrants over 1.8 million times to Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com




I think is actually helps the administration.  

They were facing pressure not only from Republicans, but also several members of their own caucus over this.  By having a judge rule they can't rescind it, they get 3 things.  First, the members of their own party aren't hammering them on it, second, they can tell the progressive wing that they tried and third, they can blame it on a Republican judge.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I think is actually helps the administration.
> 
> They were facing pressure not only from Republicans, but also several members of their own caucus over this.  By having a judge rule they can't rescind it, they get 3 things.  First, the members of their own party aren't hammering them on it, second, they can tell the progressive wing that they tried and third, they can blame it on a Republican judge.



I think you are probably right about the political aspect of it.

However, how is it that a president issues an executive order, then the new president overturns it, but a judge says ”nope I liked the other president better so I overrule you.”? It’s utter nonsense.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I think you are probably right about the political aspect of it.
> 
> However, how is it that a president issues an executive order, then the new president overturns it, but a judge says ”nope I liked the other president better so I overrule you.”? It’s utter nonsense.




How is that different than DACA?


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> How is that different than DACA?




First difference: that was a Supreme Court decision, not from just one judge.

Their reasoning was:



> "We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."




Trump’s administration didn’t follow the rule stating that they need to explain the change. In other cases (such as the Muslim ban), Trump was able to get his way by modifying the ban and getting past the (relatively low) threshold of explaining why he wanted the policy. It tells a LOT when you can’t even offer the most basic explanation for why you are doing something.

In the current title 42 case, the reasoning is clear: the CDC no longer considers immigrants a public health threat. The “reasoned explanation” threshold has clearly been met. On what grounds did the judge rule? His statement is only 2 paragraphs with no details, so who even knows? Seems like a political play, with a judge working alongside Republican state governments that want a certain outcome.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> First difference: that was a Supreme Court decision, not from just one judge.




Yes, eventually on June 18, 2020.  But 3 separate District Courts ruled it must continue on or around March 5, 2018.  So yes, individual judges did rule it must continue.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Yes, eventually on June 18, 2020.  But 3 separate District Courts ruled it must continue on or around March 5, 2018.  So yes, individual judges did rule it must continue.



Yeah… that’s how things get to the Supreme Court. They get appealed. And when deciding on a stay, it’s general practice to do the least harm possible during the process. So, in the DACA example, you want to suddenly punish millions of people who were made a promise by the government? No, the proper ruling is to keep it in place until things get resolved.

In the case of Title 42, what is the least harm? Since COVID-19 no longer poses the serious threat it did before, the least harm would be to allow asylum seekers to seek asylum, instead of subjecting them to additional hardships. So the proper ruling would be to let it expire while allowing the appeals to process through the courts.

And in the case of the mask mandate, the least harm would have been for the judge to do nothing, since the mandate was going to expire anyway. In fact, a wise judge would have sat on the case for another week or two, see the mandate expire, and toss the whole thing for being a moot point. But that judge wanted to make a political statement instead.

You are seeing judicial malfeasance in both of these cases. The mask mandate one is worse… at least the title 42, it is an early ruling. The new policy isn’t in place yet, and there’s plenty of time for appeals and/or a change by the Biden administration. So I think it’s fair to be more harsh towards the mask mandate judge. The point of bringing up the title 42 ruling is a point of comparison to show that the conservative justices are directly contradicting each other here, and in both cases, apparently for political reasons, not reasons of the law.


----------



## SuperMatt

This is a great essay discussing some of the recent rulings mentioned in this thread. Whatever happened to conservatives calling for judicial restraint?



			https://wapo.st/3kopWVF
		

(paywall removed)



> A nationwide injunction, then-Attorney General William P. Barr warned in 2019, “gives a single judge the unprecedented power to render irrelevant the decisions of every other jurisdiction in the country.” The next year, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, decried the “increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them,” arguing it creates “a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide.”
> 
> Somehow conservatives’ complaints have been muted with a Democratic administration in office. In the “Remain in Mexico” case argued this week, the justices refused the Biden administration’s earlier entreaty to lift a district judge’s order that it reinstate the Trump policy. It’s hard to square that with the court’s willingness to intervene when a different district judge blocked “Remain in Mexico” from taking effect. What’s the difference, exactly, other than that one policy was adopted by a Republican president and one by a Democrat?





> Combine this with conservative judges’ antipathy to regulation, and you have a recipe for judicial activism. This was on florid display in the mask mandate case. The judge strained to ignore statutory language authorizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take steps “as may be necessary” to limit contagion. She adopted a particularly cramped interpretation of the law’s provision allowing for “sanitation” measures. She found the CDC had no power to take such a “major” step as requiring passengers to mask up.


----------



## SuperMatt

In yet another blow to the idea that the judiciary follows the constitution instead of politics:









						Federal Judge Blocks Biden From Ending Controversial Border Policy, Title 42 — TIME
					

Title 42 will now likely remain in place for the foreseeable future




					apple.news
				




To summarize: one right-wing judge said a mask mandate *exceeds* the CDC’s authority, while another says the blocking of migrants in the name of health protections *must* be kept in place. 

Come on, man…


----------

