Jump to content

Florida Will Sue...


Recommended Posts

I hope they go threw with the suit. It sure looks like the only way we will be able to cruise this summer. It's a shame here in Massachusetts we are still in a semi locked down. Limit restrictions on indoor dinning and group size limits as well as NO live singing indoors. Mask required everywhere. Ok i under stand that people have concerns and those people are more then welcome to stay masked up. Should we not allow people who chose to go on vacation be allow to ? I am fully vaccinated and have a Sept 2021 sailing on the Horizon out of Miami that i would Very Much like to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, phoneman69 said:

I am fully vaccinated and have a Sept 2021 sailing on the Horizon out of Miami that i would Very Much like to do.

 

Your last sentence gives the game away. You're only concerned about yourself and your vacation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Essiesmom said:

Couldn't you have added your link to this thread:

 

Rather than starting another one?

 

In fairness to the OP, their thread got moved over here from the CCL forum.  Why it got moved here, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Threatening to sue is a jump away from actually filing a Federal Law suit.  But moving a case through the Federal courts can be a very time consuming exercise often measured in years rather then days.  So lets consider what might happen.  Florida and the CLIA file a joint motion asking for an injunction vacating the incomplete "framework" and allowing the cruise industry to resume operations.  The Federal Judge would then, at best, give the CDC a period of time (at least a month) to respond to the motion.   Many Federal Judges do their best to be a referee in this sort of thing so the Judge so there would be a delay while the Judge considered both sides and probably tried to get the matter resolved behind closed doors ("lets work this out).   Eventually, after many weeks or months the Judge might find in favor of one of the parties and then the other party could simply appeal to the Court of Appeals, etc. etc.   Meanwhile the clock continues to tick.

 

So let us just hope that Dr. Wollensky, now being aware there is an issue, will get her agency to work out a deal with the cruise industry.  This is a better solution, could save a lot of time. and might get the ships cruising again without wasting many months working through the legal process.  I do think the cruise lines have a plan (apparently there have been some quiet talks between various industry folks and the CDC) and it would likely look something like the restarts happening out of Nassau and St Maarten.   It has become obvious that there is some internal resistance, within the CDC, about allowing cruises to resume.  Dr. Wollensky is the one person who has both the power and opportunity to mitigate this "resistance" and light a fire under some butts within her agency.

 

Hank

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics.  Not much different than what the Alaska Senators are talking about.

 

This has far more to do with polls and the next election that it does anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, iancal said:

Politics.  Not much different than what the Alaska Senators are talking about.

 

This has far more to do with polls and the next election that it does anything else.

Agree 100%. Threatening to sue gets you so much more publicity than quietly negotiating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think this is different than Alaska.  I guess the Alaska government could ask for the PSVA to be declared unconstitutional, but that seems more difficult than to get an injunction against a  temporary  policy prohibiting an otherwise legal commercial activity.  Time will tell...

Edited by SelectSys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

I think this is different than Alaska.  I guess the Alaska government could ask for the PSVA to be declared unconstitutional, but that seems more difficult than to get an injunction against a  temporary  policy prohibiting an otherwise legal commercial activity.  Time will tell...

On what grounds would Alaska cite to have the PVSA declared unconstitutional? We don't like it does not count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

On what grounds would Alaska cite to have the PVSA declared unconstitutional? We don't like it does not count.

Agreed - I think Alaska would have a much tougher time getting an injunction than Florida.  My post was simply a reaction to @iancal's post.

Edited by SelectSys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is not about what or how they are doing it.

 

It is about why.  Self centered political interest.  Votes.  They could care less if there is no possibility of a positive outcome.  This does not enter into it.  

 

Public/voter perception trumps everything.   The distance from reality is meaningless.

Edited by iancal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iancal said:

This has far more to do with polls and the next election it does anything else.

In this specific case, I think it also has more to do with DeSantis fund raising for the next election and his need for big dollar donors especially if he decides to run for the Republican nomination.  He's already done that with the vaccine roll-out in Florida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, iancal said:

It is not about what or how they are doing it.

 

It is about why.  Self centered political interest.  Votes.  They could care less if there is no possibility of a positive outcome.  This does not enter into it.  

 

Public/voter perception trumps everything.   The distance from reality is meaningless.

 

Welcome to literally everything politics. There are more duties of governor than some perceived notion of "safety"/

 

I would also feel confidently in saying he is making a move that his base wants. Unlike some other higher-ranking officials, who are legitimately fulfilling self-centered interests and telling their base its what they want.

Edited by Joebucks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that there is even the slightest chance the DeSantis is threatening to sue because he figures that it will help him politically and not because he cares if he wins.

 

DON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joebucks said:

There are more duties of governor than some perceived notion of "safety"/

 

I would also feel confidently in saying he is making a move that his base wants. 

 

Our Governor DeWine has acted on the best and most recent scientific advice that he could receive to issue public health orders to best protect Ohioans.  That goal has been achieved, so far.  But, he has been vilified by a majority of his own political party.  Articles of Impeachment have been introduced twice along with a Bill that restricts a Governor's power to issue public health orders that was passed, vetoed, and his veto overriden on March 24th.  His efforts are works of political courage.  He is doing what he knows what is "the correct thing to do".  If he chooses to seek a second term in 2022, we will learn whether clear headed, non-political considerations are more important to the people of Ohio than the ignorant and self-serving positions of some of the Neanderthals that sit in the Ohio House and Ohio Senate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, iancal said:

Politics.  Not much different than what the Alaska Senators are talking about.

 

This has far more to do with polls and the next election that it does anything else.

 

Surely, this has to be on their radar.  Particularly, for Senator Murkowski since she is up again in 2022 and has not always been "in the Party line" as espoused by Senator McConnell.  

 

Having relatives who are Alaska citizens, there is an economic side to the issue.  Alaska needs the dollars that we, the tourists, provide.  Some "hate" to see our arrival--particularly in the ports along the Inside Passage--but our dollars are most welcome.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Your last sentence gives the game away. You're only concerned about yourself and your vacation. 

The point of my last line was to show that i "have skin in the Game, A dog in the race" like a thousand other cruisers who have had their cruises cancelled or postponed i am looking forward to a return to the water. Yes if it takes a lawsuit to make that happen so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, phoneman69 said:

i "have skin in the Game,

 

I have "skin in the Game" as a shareholder of two Cruise Companies.  

 

I want to see cruising begin in a responsible manner that is guest friendly.  That means:  no masks required; no social distancing.  Yes, I want it to return to "yesteryear" when "yesteryear" does not mean a different Century.  

 

6 minutes ago, phoneman69 said:

i am looking forward to a return to the water. Yes if it takes a lawsuit to make that happen so be it.

 

As we all are looking forward to having more water under our keel.  But, a lawsuit going to do this?  To quote a title of an oldie, but goodie song, In the Year 2525, the lawsuit might get settled.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, phoneman69 said:

The point of my last line was to show that i "have skin in the Game, A dog in the race" like a thousand other cruisers who have had their cruises cancelled or postponed i am looking forward to a return to the water. Yes if it takes a lawsuit to make that happen so be it.

 

I think all of us on CC probably have "skin in the game", given that we are still here, posting and talking about cruising over a year after sailings were halted. 

 

But that does not mean I am willing to trade away my safety merely for entertainment.

 

I feel like a lot of Americans have become like the mob in ancient Rome, dependent on bread and circuses to keep them happy and not thinking about any other consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

De Santis is the governor who refused to allow cruise ships with COVID cases to dock in Florida. He was protecting the health of Floridians.

Then he cancelled the mask and distancing mandates to protect the civil rights of Floridians. 

Now Florida is experiencing one of the worst COVID situations in America.

 

What does De Santis do? He wants to arrange an early start to hundreds of thousands of cruise ship passengers entering Florida, to protect the pocketbooks of Floridians.

We see how well the Spring Break thing went.

This early cruise start can only make it better.

Florida Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let em sue. And we can sit idly by watching as the years pass while the suit drags through all the various courts,  spending your tax dollats,  and in the meantime the originators  are long gone, and life carries on as it should. In other words,  I don't think it will make one iota of difference on when cruising restarts in Florida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Your last sentence gives the game away. You're only concerned about yourself and your vacation. 

 

 

Edit -- just saw the follow up comments.  I don't want to stir the pot so deleted my original note.     

Edited by ldubs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, phoneman69 said:

I hope they go threw with the suit. It sure looks like the only way we will be able to cruise this summer. It's a shame here in Massachusetts we are still in a semi locked down. Limit restrictions on indoor dinning and group size limits as well as NO live singing indoors. Mask required everywhere. Ok i under stand that people have concerns and those people are more then welcome to stay masked up. Should we not allow people who chose to go on vacation be allow to ? I am fully vaccinated and have a Sept 2021 sailing on the Horizon out of Miami that i would Very Much like to do.

Can states sue the federal government?

 

RICH. L. REV. 845, 849–50 (2012) (contending that States may sue the federal government only to protect their own “federal interests”—rights conferred by the Constitution or federal law—and not to challenge federal preemption).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com - June 2021
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...