Jump to content

Navis

Members
  • Posts

    164
  • Joined

Everything posted by Navis

  1. Sorry, posted to wrong thread 😀
  2. Ahh, gotcha. I was not aware that Crystal was operating out of Barbados this summer as well! I just found out that Crystal is also operating this month and next out of Boston doing round trips to Bermuda … had we known they were sailing out of here earlier we might have booked before we made land-based summer plans! The 10 min walk to the terminal would have been perfect! Have a great cruise!
  3. Any chance you rebooked to the Seabourn Odyssey? I know we’ve chatted in the past about our upcoming Seabourn journey that (I think) we both had to cancel last year.
  4. This reminds me of the first time I went home to visit my family after passing the bar and sitting through my first 3 months as an appeals court clerk. My aunts and uncles wanted to know how much of my day to day is like Law & Order. I responded, “none of it.” They then asked what about the show was legally inaccurate. I responded, “well, basically everything from the moment they walk in to the courtroom to the moment they walk out, but the rest is at least entertaining.” Lol
  5. Apologies … I left out one important additional path immediately prior to appealing to SCOTUS. The party losing at the Circuit Court panel level could also seek an appeal en banc, which would allow all the siting Circuit Court judges to collectively weigh in (rather than just the 3 that heard the initial appeal).
  6. This case will follow basically the same path as the FL suit against the CDC has to date. Meaning, whatever party loses this injunction will want to appeal. If the District Court Judge does not stay her own order pending appeal, the losing party will immediately appeal to the Circuit Court. That court would then hear the limited matter of the stay pending appeal. After that is decided, the appeal on the injunction merits itself can be heard by the Circuit Court. This all what is playing out in the FL/CDC case, FL was granted injunction … CDC requested stay … judge denied stay … CDC appeal … circuit court sustained the denial of stay and has set a calendar to hear the grant of the injunction on the merits. After the Circuit Court’s involvements, it is possible that the losing party (either of the request to stay or the judgement on the underlying injunction) could, theoretically, appeal to SCOTUS. That said, the high court rarely injects itself on such pedestrian day-to-day Federal Court matters(motions/injunctions/stays). They would be more likely to decline and wait for the underlying substance of the case to be decided below and then decide whether to grant cert on the merits of the case. In short, in the Federal system … the game is akin to chess … move fast at first while the board is open and easy (injunctions/motions/stays pending appeal), but once you get to the meat of the game (substance of the case) things grind to a slow walk.
  7. I agree. As with most commercial products, in general the market will dictate. The other variable here however are all the various port agreements the cruise lines have entered into … what do they require? What representations and covenants have the cruise lines needed to make to allow embarkation/disembarkation or itinerary stops? Have they made any promises about their vaccination practices? I think this must have a pretty material impact on practices as well .. the cruise we are on is not subject to the CSO at all as it embarks/disembarks outside the US and does not visit any US port. Yet our cruise line is starting up with practices that exceed the CSO standards. Now, as you point out, that could be for their own business purposes, but it could also be because those were the terms demanded by the countries on the itinerary for entry. We are already seeing the effects of some other variables play out in the Caribbean … ports are being dropped, sea days added as countries close their borders or add requirements for entry for which the cruise lines are not equipped to comply. I’ve just accepted that for our cruise I’m going to have to check regularly from now until next winter and adjust as needed. I think vigilance and flexibility are going to be the name of the game for the next few years. Thankfully, our cruise line has a dedicated page for their cruises embarking from our location and they update it regularly so I feel like I know where to go to get the information we need. As cruise lines begin to open up I hope they improve their communication practices … consistent and timely communication is going to be key.
  8. Haha, I wish I was on a ship somewhere right now! Not until 2022 for me, sadly. Other than my clerk experience, I really don’t have much relevant experience on this one. My practice is focused on multinational corporate M&A now. When I was clerking, we did hear a few en banc appeals of purported violations of the APA, but never one brought for exceeding delegated authority under the PHSA. That said, I have always thought the eviction moratorium might have been pushing the extreme limit of agency delegated power and I think the arguments made against such authority are quite strong (so I was not surprised to see the recent remand). As to the alternatively pled constitutional claims, I would not give them much weight at all. They were likely added primarily for forum shopping purposes so that those states would not be forced to file their claim in the DC Circuit, which has original jurisdiction on claims related solely to administrative matters. The southern states do not like DC Circuit and do everything they can to avoid filing there. By adding a constitutional claim or two to their pleadings they can avoid (or survive) a motion to transfer venue and thus have the whole case initially heard in a venue they deem more amenable to their arguments.
  9. You nailed it 😀 I’m traveling on Seabourn.
  10. Perhaps, but in today’s day and age, who knows! FWIW, I did ask the mod to delete my initial post … no one really cares what an actual lawyer and former federal court clerk has to say … everyone is in their corner so best I just stay out of it. I just want us all to get back to those days when we argue about which bar makes the best martinis! 😂
  11. Damn autocorrect … obviously I meant SCOTUS. I should have caught that in post review. I did clerk for on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for now Justice Breyer. He would have given me a tongue lashing for not proofreading my post.
  12. Not a surprising decision from a circuit court with one of the highest percentage of reversals/vacated/remand by SCOUTS. That said, I don’t really see this as anything SCOUTS would take up … nor would they had it been FL that was appealing. SCOUTS rarely bothers itself with procedural appeals and might only take this case on the semi-novel standing argument (which is interesting and has been percolating in the Appeals courts for years). If they do .. that opinion could surprise as this conservative court take a very narrow view of standing. That said, not sure what, if any, practical effect this has on NCL’s operations … they’ve already decided how they want to proceed (which was more than the CSO required anyway) and this decision changes nothing in that regard. Maybe the adopt the RCI/Carnival approach of going to 95% vaccination? I’m just happy I’m sailing on a cruise line (not NCL) outside the US that has already extended its 100% vaccination requirement to February 2022 so I don’t have to deal with any of this drama.
  13. Apologies for my confusion. Reading the website, I don’t expect anything fleet wide or simultaneously announced. The statement on the web to me is pretty clear … they will announce further vaccination requirements as they work out the arrangements with the individual ports. I’m thinking this will be piecemeal thing. I’m on the Odyssey in March visiting most of the same ports that are on the cruises starting next week so I am hopeful they will extend the requirement beyond Jan 2022 sometime this fall.
  14. I posted about this last week. It looks like they are taking it destination by destination. If you go to the “Booked Passengers” section on the website you can see for the Barbados cruises, the vaccination requirement has been extended through mid January 2022. With the note that further updates for subsequent cruises will come at a later date.
  15. I did read that as well in the exact same release about the extension of the vaccination requirement. But I’ll add that a portion of Seabourn’s answer to that question did catch my eye … they continue to say the shore excursion limitation still applies “during our initial return to cruising.” So perhaps there is some flexibility after the Oct cruises to see where things are at? I have noticed that the excursion offerings for our March 2022 cruise seem to be far more than what was offered when we were supposed to be on the same cruise in March 2020 (at least 4-5 more per stop … with the exception of St Bharts, of course). Wondering if they are expecting the excursion requirement to remain in place and just want to have enough options for all?
  16. Hello, Just thought I would share that I noticed a recent update to the Seabourn website under the Caribbean cruise section that revises the 100% vaccination requirement through January 15, 2022. The post goes on to say that guidance for cruises departing beyond that date will be forthcoming once they have worked out the operating procedures/requirements with those ports. It was curious to me that the Greece guidance was not updated with the same dates (well, at least not yet). Maybe this gives some insight into all the dynamics of these decisions …. in part passenger expectations but also what these ports are going to require to allow the ships to dock and now I’m thinking it has far more to do with the latter rather than the former. I hope this thread does not violate the posting rules in any way as that is not my intention … I just want to share the factual information with others about Seabourn’s decision to extend vaccination requirement for the Odyssey cruises through 1/15/22.
  17. I am on a similar 2 week Barbados cruise in March 2022 (and was slated to be on the March 2020 version) so I’ve done some research on this one. I believe the two days are the Carambola Beach and Mayreau days. In both cases day 6 of the 7 day cruise options. This is to be my first Seabourn adventure so the wonderful experts on here will correct me if I have that wrong.
  18. Jet Blue also offers daily direct service to BGI from Boston and includes one Mint flight on Sat mornings. We just booked our flight for March 2022 for the Mint flights and got a really good deal (relatively speaking). Folks north of NY metro area might want to look at BOS if that works for your travel plans. There has also been discussions up here that United and Delta will also add daily direct service form BOS to BGI later this winter and through the spring break season so if you’re going this winter you might have even more options.
  19. This is all getting hard to follow with all the different rules! Just read that MSC came out with their protocols and, although they are not requiring all passengers be vaccinated (not sure if they have hard percentage requirements though), but they have settled on applying the strictest practices to all passengers. So yeah, if someone is vaccinated it looks like they won’t have all the quarantining if they turn out to be a close contact of someone that tests positive stuff, but ALL passengers are going to be required to wear masks in ALL indoor public spaces and outdoor where social distancing is not possible. That would be highly dissatisfying to me as a vaccinated passenger. I get why they are going this route given their decision on vaccination, but if there are other lines out there that are going with a higher percentage of vaccinated passengers with the freedom to go maskless, I’ll take that every time.
  20. I was reading about some of the common misconceptions about vaccine efficacy when I was trying to sort this all out a few months ago. What I learned was that 95% effective does NOT mean you have a 5% chance of breakthrough infection ... it means that the vaccines reduce infection risk by 95%. The actual observed breakthrough rate has been minuscule (a month ago it was like 0.008%). So this 0.04% observation is even much higher than one would expect (although still crazy low). What I AM worried about is the impact these cases can have on my ability to enjoy my cruise, even as a fully-vaccinated traveler ... and I’m learning that sadly that is looking like it might be a port by port issue. Take Anguilla ... maybe the easiest case .. starting 7/1 all visitors to the island must provide proof of vaccination .... no exceptions. So that’s simple ... if the cruise is going there then all passengers must be vaccinated (unclear yet whether they would require the entire ship to be vaccinated or just those seeking entry - so more to come). More concerning is a country like Barbados, which just released their cruise rules last week. They have a whole set of requirements for cruise ships ... including only ship-sponsored “bubble” excursions and contract tracing. In order for a cruise to dock in Barbados the cruise line must prove to Barbados that they have procedures to quarantine any positive cases on board as well as ALL passengers that were a close contact of such passengers. So in this case, were i to be deemed a close contact of these two passengers on the Millennium I would need to be quarantined as well if my cruise itinerary included a stop in Barbados. That would annoy me. Perhaps it is just a new cruise risk I need to accept? I bring all this up because I am actually on a 14nt Caribbean cruise next winter visiting 13 islands. The cruise line has already communicated a bunch of information to us that they claim is to manage passenger expectations. The latest was to tell us that of the 13 islands we are visiting, the cruise line has been advised by each government that all but one (St Lucia) will only allow passengers off the ship if they are on a ship-sponsored excursion that exercises social distance and other COVID-appropriate protocols (and they gave masking as an example). A bummer for sure ... but we can live with that. What we are thinking about now is how collateral infection might still effect our vacation in ways we have not fully grasped.
  21. We’re taking the same approach and are looking forward to seeing how these early cruises play out. Right now our only option is to fly in the morning of embarkation so if it turns out that is not possible we’ll probably end up cancelling and rebooking ... perhaps for Alaska summer 2022.
  22. We’ve been following the Barbados tourism website carefully as well, even though our cruise is not until next March. I have also been curious as to how Barbados will treat cruise embarkations ... are they going to be considered as “traveling by air” or “traveling by sea”? One would hope sea, but the whole presentation seems to focus of mode of initial entry to the country. In any event, I just checked it again and the “coming soon” page for traveling by sea has been slightly undated. It now has a very light cover page behind it that says “protocols for cruises requiring fully vaccinated passengers.” Thought that was interesting as it appears Barbados may be thinking of adopting separate requirements based on ship vaccination requirements. Just thought I would share.
  23. I have personally drafted over 100 appellate decisions in my time as clerk on 2 separate Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. In my 3 years, we heard over 500 oral arguments, motions hearings, en banc hearings, and post judgment motion hearings. In all those cases, we actually had to opine on the application of the 10th Amendment exactly ONE time. I remember it because when I was circulating the draft opinion among the judges I tried to give the argument as much credence as possible by “beefing up” the draft to at least give the topic 1 page of the 120+ page opinion. The reaction I got from the other two judges was “cut it down to two or three sentences. The 10th Amendment deserves no more attention than that.” So, I went with a very simple statement of the fact, cited the 3 major SCOUTS precedent and left it at 3 sentences.” Our decision was ultimately upheld 12-3 en banc hearing and 7-2 by SCOUTS. In fact, neither subsequent opinion even addressed the 10th Amendment. So, yes, I like to think I know at least a little bit more about these things than most. Also, what attorneys may “argue” in the public realm and in TV often times vary drastically from what they ultimately file with a court... for obvious reasons, as attorneys we are held to a certain standard with respect to court filings. In fact, in my state I am part of our state Bar Ethics Oversight Committee. We are in the process of drafting new provisions to our Code of Professional Responsibility to apply those same standards to all communications from an attorney to the general public when opining in a legal capacity. It is our hope that will avoid public confusion and stop the negligent showboating that has become all to prevalent in our profession. If legal filings can have consequences so should any other form of communication that is legal in nature and my reasons my be given credibility by a layperson.
  24. I can certainly understand why it might appear to those not trained in the minutiae of the law that these matters seem confusing or irreconcilable, but they really are not. First, the 10th and 14th Amendment are completely different animals. The 14th Amendment jurisprudence (especially the equal protection clause) is far more detailed, subtle and complex than the 10th Amendment. I always hated being assigned the 14th Amendment section of an opinion because it is, without a doubt, the most difficult provision of the Constitution to interpret, cite and draft in a way that SCOUTS would not overrule. You hear the 10th thrown around a lot, but those of us that have studied it, written federal appeals court opinions on it know it’s is toothless and been stripped of all meaning for almost 100 years now. You rarely see it raised in a competent federal appellate brief or at oral argument. And yes, certainly with the past administration you had .... to put it kindly .... a high water mark on attempted executive power, but objections were not based on the 10th ... in most cases it was because the purported executive action violated some other amendment (and most often the 1st and/or 14th Amendment). These past few years take me back to my first ever Con Law class ... the professor started with the simple question ... so, you’ve all read the Constitution ... what article is the most important? You had a lot of “Article III because it establishes the judiciary” or “all of them are equally important.” His response still sticks with me all these years later ... If Article I wasn’t the most important, why is it roughly 3x longer than articles II and III?” The lesson ... our founding fathers were highly skeptical of concentrating power in an unitary executive or a unitary or plurality judiciary. The power should come from the people in the form of Congress NOT in the form of who those people elect as President (that seems to have been lost over the years). And that awesome power should be wielded by as large and as diverse body as possible and that’s why all the real power is vested in Congress under Article I.
  25. I’ll also add I find all of this talk about this law just such a waste of space. Were I their general counsel my advice would be straight forward. Really 3 business options: (i) file suit in Federal Court and seek to have the law declared invalid specifically as it applies to foreign flagged ships, (ii) go the more nuclear route and ask a court to find the law broadly unconstitutional as applied to ANY business engaged in interstate commerce in FL; or (iii) do nothing vis-a-vis Florida and just make it clear to all passengers that vaccination status must be provided prior to arrival at the dock and that any passenger who does not provide that information will be denied boarding. Option 1 would be the narrow legal course of action but would take time (even on an accelerated basis). Option 2 would not be the neighborly thing to do. So that leaves option 3 as the easiest ... let people arrive ... don’t ask them a single question ... let them get up the gangway and step foot on the vessel ... then demand vaccination status. If a passenger does not provide ... kick them off. I’d advise them to start with the first option while simultaneously employing the 3rd until the judgment is entered.
×
×
  • Create New...