songbird1329

Our first cruise on Celebrity  (we sailed on Carnival and Royal Caribbean).  It’s been awhile since our last cruise and I’ve forgotten half of what I learned...
 

We’re booked on the Constellation for December 2022.  Significant Other booked the reservation  and chose a cabin that I’m less than totally thrilled with.  Should I try to change it, how easy or difficult would that be?

What about an upgrade?  Are we likely to see price drops that would make it feasible?

Current status of the litigation.  Florida’s reply brief puts the vaccines front and center and puts Florida law against the CDC vaccine requirement.

oral argument tomorrow 

Latest on the litigation front.  The Florida Attorney General’s supplemental brief puts vaccines front and center and puts the Florida law against CDC requirements.  Oral argument is tomorrow.  
 

I wonder if Merryday will rule from the bench.

54 minutes ago, Keys2Heaven said:

I'm thinking this is going to be a game of semantics played out by lawyers.

 

Carnival set the stage by saying it would require vaccinated passengers for July sailings. That means you need to show proof.

 

Question: Would it be against Florida law (after July 1) for Carnival to provide a means for a passenger to voluntarily upload proof of vaccination on a server hosted out of Florida or voluntarily provide that at the terminal?

If one shows up at the terminal and doesn't volunteer proof, are they turned away? Would they be have to undergo testing? Would the cost of pre-embarkation testing be passed on to the passenger, much like what RCCL's CEO stated in his video yesterday?

Anyway, the federal judge will hear arguments Thursday. Hopefully, there is a resolution soon to all of this.

No, that won’t work, but there are other work arounds.  Under Florida law you can’t deny service, but ... you can offer incentives, such as discounts, to those who show proof of vaccination.

51 minutes ago, Keys2Heaven said:

I'm thinking this is going to be a game of semantics played out by lawyers.

 

Carnival set the stage by saying it would require vaccinated passengers for July sailings. That means you need to show proof.

 

Question: Would it be against Florida law (after July 1) for Carnival to provide a means for a passenger to voluntarily upload proof of vaccination on a server hosted out of Florida or voluntarily provide that at the terminal?

If one shows up at the terminal and doesn't volunteer proof, are they turned away? Would they be have to undergo testing? Would the cost of pre-embarkation testing be passed on to the passenger, much like what RCCL's CEO stated in his video yesterday?

Anyway, the federal judge will hear arguments Thursday. Hopefully, there is a resolution soon to all of this.

Vaccine passports and Florida law aren’t part of the suit.  The suit is to enjoin enforcement of the CSO and resulting regulations.  From what I’ve seen I don’t think Florida’s suit will succeed,  so no, it’s not going to be resolved any time soon.

6 hours ago, Tippyton said:

Regular people asking simple questions our great and all-knowing Government cannot seem to answer and are too cowardly to even acknowledge.  We are the forgotten 20%.

VARIANTS

I am sure the cruise lines are contemplating work arounds 

3 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

This point has been brought up and discussed to death.

 

I am vaccinated - I am not concerned about unvaccinated people near me.

 

The concern is that if enough unvaxxed pax get on a cruise and a minor outbreak occurs, it will be a media circus and death knell for the cruise industry.

 

The other major detractor is that if masks are required and social distancing hugely enforced on cruises because of an unknown number of unvaxxed pax, such that everyone has to wear a mask, and everyone has to stay 6 ft apart in the shows, and no service at the bar, etc, then the whole experience will be miserable for everyone.  Right now, if all pax are fully vaxxed the social distancing stuff get hugely relaxed.  Hey, that rhymes!

Exactly.  
 

I’d be upset if my cruise were ruined because of a Covid outbreak on my ship.  

20 minutes ago, basil's mom said:

 

 

it was my understanding that vaccination was supposed to keep you from getting the COVID-19 virus. 

 

 You misunderstood.

The vaccine isn’t designed to keep you from contracting the virus.  It’s designed to keep you out of the hospital, off a vent and out of the morgue,

Fully vaccinated people have been known to test positive for the virus and have been known to have mild symptoms if they have a breakthrough infection.

Let me quote the case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 US 11(1905)

“The police power of a State embraces such reasonable regulations relating to matters completely within its territory, and not affecting the people of other States, established directly by legislative enactment, as will protect the public health and safety.

While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed, or not exercised in such an arbitrary and oppressive manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine 

in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.”

The CDC gets its authority from the Public Health Service Act, 42 USC  201 et seq..  The law provides that  the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to take measures to contain communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. The CDC acts on behalf of the Secretary in these matters.  It’s a Commerce Clause power.

The CDC can’t force you to get a vaccine, but they do have the power to determine that cruise ships must ensure that their passengers are vaccinated.

1 hour ago, SwordBlazer Cruising said:

HIPPA does not apply because Covid -19 was certified a global pandemic. Once this designation is lifted then its a different story. 

HIPPA does not apply.  Period.

HIPPA applies only to medical providers and whether they are permitted to release your medical data to third parties.  IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIRD PARTIES WHO WANT YOUR MEDICAL  INFORMATION.

Throughout your life you have been asked to provide medical information to third parties, such as when you had to provide proof of vaccination against polio, measles, mumps, etc. when you enrolled in public school and many universities.  
 

And since we are on the subject ... the law supports mandatory vaccinations.  There’s a Supreme Court case from 1905 regarding mandatory smallpox vaccinations, a case which has been relied on in the current pandemic to support mask mandates, etc.  in that case the Court supported mandatory vaccination.

The EEOC has routinely supported employers who mandated that their employees be vaccinated against influenza over the employee’s objection (though that usually means that the unvaccinated employee must mask up while at work).

what makes COVID different is that the vaccines haven’t been fully approved by the FDA, they’ve gotten only emergency approval...but that distinction will soon be irrelevant.

9 hours ago, MrMarc said:

But doesn't the original suit cite the economic impact as a harm?  I certainly would bring it up, as it seems to totally undercut that issue.

Yes, but the litigation hasn't advanced to the stage where a defense like "mitigation of damages" is relevant.

The CDC can't argue that Florida failed to mitigate its damages until the ships start sailing and cruise lines pull out of Florida for other ports because of the anti vax rule.

Right now the CDC seems to be arguing that the suit is moot because the ships have been given permission to sail

1 minute ago, MrMarc said:

I really wonder how the ban on requiring vaccination proof is going to play in this case.  The State is arguing about the economic impact, but their own law is preventing a faster startup.  Basically they haven't mitigated their damages.

That’s not an issue raised in the suit just yet, but I can see it being argued eventually 

Getting back to the DeSantis lawsuit.

judge granted the CDC’s motion to file an additional brief and Florida May file a response.

Hearing to be held June 10.

7 minutes ago, Joe817 said:

Well hell. Please do! It's a REAL open message board. We want to hear your speculations, I assure you. 

You want it, you’ve got it.

I read all of the papers submitted to the court.  I have not seen the transcript of the oral argument held before the court.

when I read the initial motion for a preliminary injunction, I thought Florida’s argument was weak.  I had to agree with the legal scholars that the case was more about political grandstanding and less about actually obtaining relief from the court.

I also thought it very telling that the cruise lines didn’t join the suit, but rather, continued to work with the CDC.

Floridas legal position has weakened.  The CDC and the cruise lines have reached a point where the ships are likely to sail this summer.  Congress has given its blessing by passing ATRA, which conditions Alaska cruises on compliance with the CSO.

Florida continues to assert that the CSO is overreach by the CDC, and that it is causing irreparable harm to Florida.  But the cruises are going to sail this summer, aren’t they?

meanwhile, Florida has enacted a law that prevents private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination in order to obtain services.  A business violating this law faces hefty fines.  Other states have executive orders preventing state and local governments from asking for proof, but the only state affected by the CSO that has extended the ban to private enterprises is Florida.  It’s a big deal for DeSantis.

Those lovely cards issued by the CDC proving someone has been vaccinated are probably the CDC’s “line in the sand”.  
 

The mediation was doomed to failure.

7 hours ago, ontheweb said:

The next step will probably be the judge setting a trial date. It may very well be after cruises resume making the whole lawsuit moot.

First the judge has to rule on the various motions.  If the judge denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, that essentially kills the lawsuit. Alternatively he could grant the motion outright, or set a date for a further hearing,  

Given the extensive papers filed on the motion, I don’t think the judge needs or wants a hearing/trial on the facts. I think he’s got enough of a record to decide the motion on the papers.

Mediation between Florida and the CDC failed ... I can only speculate...

Meanwhile, the CDC has approved cruises in other states...I heard Bayonne will be opening for cruising soon ...

53 minutes ago, Tippyton said:

Now, from the You-Can't-Have-It-Both-Ways Department.....

 

CDC is in a jam.  Threatening Alaska cruises because FL wins a lawsuit demonstrates the capriciousness and how arbitrary the rules are.  Bring in the circular firing squad.

It’s Florida that’s in the jam.

If push your anti vax law, you risk losing cruises.  The only way to keep cruises and keep your anti vax law is to void the CSO.

But Congress passed ATRA based on the CSO.  Without the CSO, cruises can’t sail to Alaska.  So you throw Alaska under the bus to save your own cruise industry and your anti vax law.

Most of the cruise lines and most of the prospective passengers support requiring proof of vaccination to cruise, but there’s a law in Florida...

I’ve read most of the papers filed with the court.  I’m no expert, but I suspect the CDC will prevail.  The fact that the cruise lines have negotiated with the CDC and they’re getting ready to sail this summer really knocks the wind out of the motion for a preliminary injunction.  
 

if there are no cruises out of Florida this summer, it will be a self inflicted wound.

 And there's this.  

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-bz-florida-vs-cdc-cruise-lawsuit-alaska-wrinkle-20210603-flm3ng54cngabowbdbug7f43yy-story.html

DeSantis has apparently boxed himself in.  He portrayed himself as the champion of the cruise lines. But the cruise lines, the CDC and Congress ignored him and came up with their own solutions.

vaccines seem to be the CDC’s line in the sand.  Will DeSantis cave?  Or will the cruise lines have to develop a work-around or move their ships?

21 minutes ago, Pratique said:

21 minutes ago, Pratique said:

The full briefs? Or just the request?

CDC filed a motion to serve a supplemental brief, citing ATRA as. Congressional  approval of the CSO and also that Florida’s motion is moot because the CDC and the cruise lines are getting the ships into the water.  CDC also argued that granting the injunction would end Alaska cruising, because ATRA only allows cruising under the CSO.

In response, Florida essentially threw Alaska under the bus.   
 

and argued that every day the ships don’t sail is causing irreparable harm to Florida.

11 minutes ago, Pratique said:

True the facts are different, what’s interesting is how the trial judge handled the motion to stay pending appeal.

Handled just as I expected it would be.  Status quo pending appeal.

3 hours ago, Pratique said:

If the judge allows the parties to file supplemental briefs, we could be churning for a while longer. 😃

Already filed....

4 hours ago, Pratique said:

The opinion of the trial judge in one of the CDC eviction cases is enlightening. Although the facts are different, the same law is in play.

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18658400/61/alabama-association-of-realtors-v-united-states-department-of-health-and/ (emphasis added)

 

As to the second factor—whether the movant will be irreparably injured absent a stay—

the movant must make a strong showing “that the injury claimed is both certain and great.”

Cuomo, 772 F.2d at 976 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Probability of success is inversely

proportional to the degree of irreparable injury evidenced.” Id. at 974. “A stay may be granted

with either a high probability of success and some injury, or vice versa.” Id.

       The Department has made a showing of irreparable injury here. As the federal agency

tasked with disease control, the Department, and the CDC in particular, have a strong interest in

controlling the spread of COVID-19 and protecting public health. The CDC’s most recent order

is supported by observational data analyses that estimate that as many as 433,000 cases of

COVID-19 and thousands of deaths could be attributed to the lifting of state-based eviction

moratoria. See 86 Fed. Reg. 16,731, 16,734 (Mar. 31, 2021). The CDC Order also cites a

mathematical model that “estimate[s] that anywhere from 1,000 to 100,000 excess cases per

million population could be attributable to evictions depending on the eviction and infection

rates.” Id. To be sure, these figures are estimates, but they nonetheless demonstrate that lifting

the national moratorium will “exacerbate the significant public health risks identified by [the]

CDC.” Defs.’ Mot. to Stay at 3. Even though “vaccinations are on the rise,” Pls.’ Opp’n at 2, at

least as of last week, the nation was averaging “more than 45,000 new infections per day,” Defs.’

Mot. to Stay at 5–6, and the recent “emergence of variants” presents yet another potential cause

for concern, see 86 Fed. Reg. at 16,733. Thus, the risks to public health continue.

 

...

 

 

A stay to allow the D.C. Circuit time to review this Court’s ruling, presumably on an

expedited basis, will no doubt result in continued financial losses to landlords. But the

magnitude of these additional financial losses is outweighed by the Department’s weighty

interest in protecting the public. See League of Indep. Fitness Facilities & Trainers, Inc. v.

Whitmer, 814 F. App’x 125, 129–30 (6th Cir. 2020).

As I recall, the issue is different.  Congress initially approved the non eviction provision, and when the Congressional provision expired the CDC sought to extend the ban without Congress. 
 

Here, the CDC acted on its own, and Congress adopted the CDC actions after passing the law allowing Alaskan cruises to resume.