Jump to content

harkinmr

Members
  • Posts

    2,609
  • Joined

Posts posted by harkinmr

  1. Just now, jrapps said:

    I was just glad I got to watch it. Very educational. I will profess my ignorance of the law so I hope my commentary wasn't meant to insuate that NCL will prevail. My gut tells me that is the case, but I have no training to claim that I understand any of it.

     

    But is was fun to watch!

     

    I think you did a fine job. It can be a great experience to see how the process really works. I think most lay people expect Perry Mason or LA Law. Lol!

  2. 2 hours ago, jrapps said:

    The judge also sort of admonished FLs lawyer every time he kept mentioning "Vaccine Passports" reminding him that no such thing exists and that was a political distinction in the press, and had no legal bearing on the case. FL's lawyer kept trying to call them passports instead of "documented proof of vaccination"

    Thanks for the blow-by-blow on the proceedings jrapps.  Very interesting indeed. 

  3. 8 minutes ago, kearney said:

    Royal's sailings out of Florida allow more than 5% unvaccinated... so they are following CDC rules for that situation...which requires masks for all..regardless of vaccine status unless you are in one of the vaccine only locations..where masking is not necessary. This is not new and is consistent with CDC guidance. Celebrity on the other hand is sailing with fewer than 5% unvaccinated and the CDC guidance allows for vaccinated not to wear masks. I don't really see any change... it appears to be a middle finger to the courts... essentially saying..."okay you can say the CSO exceeds our authorization and cruise lines can do what they want...but we are going to use this other aspect of our powers to make their lives a living hell should they decide to do what you allow them to do.". Frankly I do not see the cruise lines changing anything in terms of loosening protocols for a while... by then courts will decide and hopefully Delta variant will have faded.

    This type of personalization of the CDC’s instructions on the transit mask requirement for ships not following the CSO voluntarily is really becoming over the top.  The CSO allowed for an exemption to the transit mask mandate for cruise lines based on compliance with the order. It makes perfect sense that any failure to continue to voluntarily comply with the overall provisions of the order while sailing out of Florida would result in the reimposition of the full mask mandate, as well as testing and other sanitation protocols.  The cruise lines are going to continue to comply with the CSO provisions for the very reason that it is in their best interests and because of the administrative nightmare involved in trying to comply with the order in other jurisdictions while not complying in Florida. The lines understand the concepts of unintended consequences and “be careful what you wish for” even if many cruisers do not. All of this so flies in the face of common sense as we have seen so aptly demonstrated by the now devastating impact of the Delta variant directly related to vaccine hesitancy.  It needs to stop. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  4. 12 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

    Sorry, under our Constitution that is not how it works.  Agencies have NO POWER to do anything without Congress giving it to them.  That is the basis for the lawsuit.

    It’s never a good idea to selectively quote from a post or fail to reflect context. It just makes your response appear misguided.  I never said that government agencies had inherent powers. They are given their regulatory powers pursuant to legislation, as in this case with the CDC. 
     

    https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/Mask-Order-CDC_GMTF_01-29-21-p.pdf

     

  5. 1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

    Won't they require the same thing from all other cruise ships or is the CDC willing to risk the health and public safety by only targeting the cruise ships they don't like?

     

    It sounds a little bit like neglect of duty for political purposes to me, but what would I know, I only had people and agencies prosecuted for this...

     

    There are laws and they must apply to everyone or they don't apply to anybody.

     

    "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution

     

    14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

     

    A 'corporation' is also a person under U.S. law.  Where is the equal treatment here?  I would venture a guess that Judge Merryday has the answer.

    If these laws must apply to all equally, as you say, then the cruise lines that are sailing from other states would also have a valid claim that the “onerous”provisions of the CSO that apply to them must also apply equally to those within the jurisdiction of Florida.  Why should they be subject to such unequal treatment in the eyes of the law?  
     

    It is not “neglect of duty” as the mandates for masking and other health protocols, as well as testing and reporting of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases onboard for reentry to the US are encompassed within the CSO.  The CDC is simply providing a reminder to the cruise lines that health protocols and infection control will apply notwithstanding that the CSO has no further legal enforcement claim in the State of Florida. 
     

    You seem to see this as some sort of vendetta by the CDC and akin to political persecution.  Perhaps if you backed away from that and simply looked at it as a means for protecting public health and the control of infectious disease in the absence of the no sail order it would look less villainous.  The VSP lives on as it always has.
     

    It really is all a moot point, as it appears very clear that the cruise lines will continue to comply with the guidance and recommendations of the CDC for all sailings out of Florida. We can all only hope and celebrate this approach, as not doing so would surely prove to be a disaster in the making under the current circumstances. 

  6. 16 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

    Actually, if you were to take the interpretation of some of these posts as to where the CDC's masking mandate has jurisdiction , then the CDC would be able to mandate that you must wear a mask when on a tour bus on an excursion in a foreign country, or taking a nice sail in Aruba.  If you sail R/T from the U.S. to Italy, you better wear a mask in that gondola...I didn't realize that the CDC now has assumed world wide authority to mandate conduct.

     

    As an aside, if the CDC's public transit mask requirement applied to cruise ships then why did they need to insert masking rules into the CSO?

     

    This is really getting absurd.

    You are correct. This is getting absurd, because some posters are carrying their “theories” to illogical extremes. The CDC and its public transportation mandate would not apply to transportation within a foreign country as that “tour bus” trip did not originate from, nor would it be returning to the US. And mask requirements are in fact incorporated into the CSO.  There have been adjustments to those requirements under the order in the case of vaccinated cruises meeting the 95/98 threshold, as well as modifications for certain venues and outdoor locations. 

  7. 1 minute ago, POA1 said:

    You did not provide ONE SINGLE US Code (which is the law. Google it!) citation.

     

    All you did was show me where the CDC claimed its authority vested.

     

    Have you tried banging your head on a hard surface? That oft times works with tube-powered equipment.


    https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/Mask-Order-CDC_GMTF_01-29-21-p.pdf

     

    Personal insults prove nothing but a desperate need to denigrate when you have no other resource. The CDC garners its regulatory power under the federal statute giving HHS its public health mandate, including its powers during a Public Health Emergency.  Regulatory power is very broad in its nature for any public entity. 

     

    • Like 2
  8. 9 minutes ago, POA1 said:

    Designated BY THE CDC per Google - which is never wrong. Show me the US Code citation that says it. (You can Google it. Pro tip: There are law databases for this. There are better.)

    https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/index.html

     

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/face-masks-public-transportation.html

     

    You make this so easy.  The CDC has established regulations pursuant to its authority under federal law in many ways aside from the Conditional Sail Order.  Federal law provides them with regulatory control over cruise ships.  Their mandates clearly cover all sorts of public transportation, including maritime under federal maritime law.  This would include any transit mask mandate.  

     

    Now, you show me a federal code citation where it establishes that the CDC does not have this power.

  9. 20 minutes ago, POA1 said:

    Cruise ships do not, by definition, qualify as Public Transportation. That's rather the point of the PVSA.

     

    They're in a whole separate category. If cruises were public transportation, you would have the same requirements as buses, planes, and trains. We'd also be able to lobby for those sweet tax dollars to pay for our trips.

    They are public transportation and have been designated as such by the CDC for purposes of the public transit mask mandate.  Google it. 

  10. 3 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

    Per the CDC:  "On January 29, 2021, CDC issued an Order that required face masks to be worn by all people while on public transportation (which included all passengers and all personnel operating conveyances) traveling into, within, or out of the United States and U.S. territories."

    Requirement for Face Masks on Public Transportation Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs | CDC

     

    The rule stops at the 12 mile limit unless entering U.S. territorial waters and then only within the 12 mile limit of the U.S. territory's waters.

    You need to do some research. This has been discussed repeatedly. The language you highlight speaks directly to the fact that compliance is expected at all times outside US waters and airspace in order to reenter the US. You will also want to research the concept of “free pratique” which requires compliance will all federal regulations even outside US waters in order to freely reenter a US port. 

  11. 17 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

    That is precisely the point of the Florida suit.  CDC can issue guidelines but not arbitrarily order the shutdown an entire industry for an indefinite period. 

     

    I do believe that it is in the best interests of the industry to adopt many of the suggestions of the CDC but not necessarily every single suggestion in order to sail.

     

    I also believe that it is in the best interests of the CDC to be more reticent in issuing its rules lest a court or congress step in to reign in the authority of the agency.

    That was not the point of the Florida suit. The point of the Florida suit was that the CSO was issued outside the scope of the CDC’s legal mandate. Florida has not supported CDC guidance as has been abundantly demonstrated by the Governor’s approach to COVID-19 protocols from the start of the pandemic and his assertions that he can prevent the cruise lines from mandating vaccines.  One must also keep in mind that until there is a final resolution on the underlying lawsuit that the CSO remains in full force and effect in every other state outside Florida. There is no cruise line that is going to work outside the scope of the order and incur the administrative nightmares that would naturally follow from doing so.  

  12. Just now, Daniel A said:

    That's an interesting article.  I don't believe Judge Merryday will permit the CDC inflicting punishment on only those ships that do not comply with the CSO.  That on its face is making it a mandatory requirement rather than medical guidance.  It clearly flies in the face of the injunction.  The CDC response to the lifting of the stay sounds more like an intemperate child having a tantrum.  If CDC wants to implement these provisions across the board on all cruise ships, that's one thing, but this article says these rules will only apply to those ships not voluntarily complying with the CSO.

     

    Additionally, the rule only applies to the first and last 12 miles out of Florida.

    You are personalizing the response by the CDC and that is a mistake. This is a legal game and that is all. This is not “punishment” and Judge Merryday will not have a say. The public transportation mandate is separate and distinct from the CSO. It does not stop at international waters. It continues during the length of the voyage and must be maintained to reenter the US. It’s very clear that the cruise lines will continue to comply with the CDC rules notwithstanding the preliminary injunction in Florida. Royal Caribbean and CLIA have already made statements to that effect. Anyone expecting dramatic changes to the way cruise ships operate out of Florida will surely be disappointed. 
     

     

  13. 24 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

    Why do you believe that?  They've extended the No Sail Orders (the CSO by another name) a few times already.  You don't think they'll do it again?  Even @nocl stated the CDC could extend the CSO beyond November 1.  I think mediation was only tried once.  The second order to return to mediation was contained in the injunction presently at issue.  That is the injunction that just got another stay from the appellate court, so I'm not sure they ever returned for more mediation as the injunction hasn't taken effect yet.

     

    But you're right about future implications.  I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation in Congress codifying one side of the issue or another.

    Any extension of the CSO will depend upon circumstances at the time. I do not predict that one will take place simply “because”. That is a scare tactic used on a regular basis and lacks context. If conditions deteriorate here because of continued vaccine hesitancy and new variants, I would expect a continuation of vaccine requirements and protocols on a voluntary basis by the cruise lines. I see any sort of further no sail order to only be issued under extraordinary circumstances. 
     

    Mediation was tried twice.  The second time was when the judge ordered the parties back to mediation to negotiate a replacement CSO while his injunction was stayed.  That obviously didn’t work either.  I don’t anticipate that the appellate court would further engage with that type of resolution. The issue wasn’t conducive to mediation then, and it certainly isn’t now. 

    • Like 1
  14. 10 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

    Not at all.  I'm just explaining what is currently happening with the injunction.  The trial hasn't even started yet.  I am curious to know if the appellate panel is also staying the part of the injunction requiring the parties back into mediation.  That would seem to me to be unproductive and a flaw in issuing a full stay.

    It was unproductive when the trial court judge did it as well...both times. Without making any premature assumptions about the appellate court opinions, it is possible that they could comment on the analysis and rationale used by Judge Merryday for purposes of issuing the preliminary injunction. That, in turn, could impact the trial on the merits. I would also assume that the CDC would further appeal any unfavorable trial court verdict.  This is far from over no matter how the chips fall. By the time there is a resolution, the CSO will have expired. The resolution will, however, impact the CDC and the cruise lines going forward when the next pandemic hits. 

  15. 26 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

    A last minute stay, with a one-page ruling, with no explanation, and a dissent speaks to a purely procedural stay by the 11th Circuit.  It can be either a federal court deference to the US OR an ‘invitation’ for Florida to petition for an en banc review.


    This is not a ruling on any merits of the case.  It is a stay on the ruling to suspend the mandatory nature of the CSO on July 18.

    While the initial stay ruling did not comment on the merits of the underlying case, there will be opinions to follow which will likely address both the merits and the issuance of the preliminary injunction. I think we have to reserve any judgments as to the impact of the ruling until we see the rationale of the court. 

    • Like 1
  16. Just now, Jordanyaya1 said:

    Be careful what you wish for. This is seeding power to the CDC, which I remind you is headed up by political appointees. Might be well and good for now but what about the future regardless of what party is in power. 
     

    Federal agencies of all kinds have always had the power to regulate. This is nothing new.  There will also always be challenges to that power, but it will never go away entirely.  

    • Like 1
  17. 3 minutes ago, jackpotter said:

    Nope, the lovely guvnah of Fl, Ron DeSantis has said no one has to show vaccination status going out of FL so all they can do is ask if you want to tell, but they do require tests if you say no you haven't had shots.  Very Scary.  The Govenor was wrong, and should have allowed the cruise industry in Florida to ask that all cruisers up to 95% at least, were vaccinated and to show proof.  Not sure why the cruise industry bowed to the Govnuh.  Tough guy taking away the rights of the vaccinated passengers.

    You are correct in one regard. The Florida vaccine passport ban does apply, however, Carnival has opted to sail with not less than 95% vaccinated passengers. They did this to avoid test cruises. The workaround to the ban is that passengers confirm their vaccine status online or by phone prior to sailing and then voluntarily submit their proof at boarding. If they do not, they are considered unvaccinated and could be denied boarding if the 5% unvaccinated cap has been reached.  If Carnival sails with more than 5% unvaccinated passengers, then they are in violation of the CDC requirement and could lose their certification to sail. At least this is the way it is “supposed” to work. 

×
×
  • Create New...