I'm beginning to think the CDC may very well lose the lawsuit that Florida initiated

[JRG]

5 minutes ago, songbird1329 said:

Yeah, you do have an interesting view of the world.....

 

 

So does Judge Judy......🧠

[JRG]

45 minutes ago, songbird1329 said:

The issue in the court case, as framed by the attorneys who actually drafted the motion papers, whether the CDC, in its effort to protect public health, overreached its authority.  But thanks for playing.

 

One of us is not reading his briefs correctly,  

 

In the actionable cause of 'over-reaching its authority',  the subsequent large scale economic damage has caused or can cause extended public health risks,  that would outweigh the costs of the public health risks currently being endured in the declining state of the pandemic.

 

The substance vs form argument is useful to see that 'it now makes sense to ease up'  and 'it is costing Florida and all related travel industries (not just the cruiselines)  millions of dollars a day and this is leverage to get the CDC to get things moving and that is what it looks like they may be doing. 

 

The word outweigh is bolded as this is the substance outweighing the form.

 

This may be why the lawyers for the CDC never filed a motion to dismiss.  (need to confirm that) but given the pleasantries that are being exchanged according to Del Rio things are proceeding on a good faith basis.   That is encouraging.

 

I believe the state has taken this position and it is moving the pile ,   I am guessing that everybody shared this info with the CDC in discovery and that might explain why the Judge punted on 2nd down.

 

p.s.  its never about the poster,   it is always about the post.

[Snore42]

I don’t think Florida is being impacted as much as the cruise industry says.  Certainly money is being lost, but tourism in Florida has been very strong.  Ports have also been extremely busy with cargo vessels.   Airlines and hotels are raising rates and expanding supply due to the high demand, all while cruise ships aren’t sailing.   
 

Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but Del Rio was on CNBC earlier and actually supported Desantis and his actions.   He also said that for now it will be 100% vaccinated to get started, but down the road they will be relaxing this once they can get ships sailing and the percentage of those vax’d nationally increases.    Very positive interview I thought.    

[JRG]

6 minutes ago, Snore42 said:

Very positive interview I thought.

 

Yes,  I saw the interview today also.    He was not posturing like they were pulling out either,  he was very optimistic about things moving along.

[BoozinCroozin]

Well everything has changed in 2-weeks. Arbitration/Mediation is due by June 1st. I think there has been a ton of progress and I think the CDC has made some very good strides forward. I think there can be more made. The biggest is no mask for vaccinated passengers.

 

Passengers without the vaccine have a different card than those vaccinated. They also have to wear some type of band that tracks them to insure their diaper is on. Do the 3 strikes and you are out game. After your 3rd warning, you are confined to your cabin until being disembarked at the next port. Make the passengers sign the agreement or not sail. It is that simple. 

[navybankerteacher]

18 minutes ago, BoozinCroozin said:

Well everything has changed in 2-weeks. Arbitration/Mediation is due by June 1st. I think there has been a ton of progress and I think the CDC has made some very good strides forward. I think there can be more made. The biggest is no mask for vaccinated passengers.

 

Passengers without the vaccine have a different card than those vaccinated. They also have to wear some type of band that tracks them to insure their diaper is on. Do the 3 strikes and you are out game. After your 3rd warning, you are confined to your cabin until being disembarked at the next port. Make the passengers sign the agreement or not sail. It is that simple. 

Doesn’t this presuppose some effective proof of vaccination - which I do not think has been agreed upon?

[BoozinCroozin]

11 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Doesn’t this presuppose some effective proof of vaccination - which I do not think has been agreed upon?

Yes and I think it should be mandatory and verifiable. Even though my opinion several months ago was different, but if there is a diaper face requirement for the unvaccinated, then they need to be identifiable the entire cruise. THEY are putting the entire cruise at risk and everyone should be able to protect THEIR vacation from unvaccinated ruining it. 

 

I'm sorry, we are still in a covid situation whether I agree with it or not. There is a vaccine. You choose to take it or not. It is freedom of choice, but not freedom from consequences. Those consequences can be as simple as being a diaper face 24/7 when not in the cabin all the way up to finance restitution for all others on a ship that has to return to port early. 

[JRG]

I think we are going to see something happen today from behind the closed doors.

 

June 1 is Monday,  and with that being the deadline,   I think we will hear something today after 4:00 est before the weekend.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by JRG

[CruiserBruce]

42 minutes ago, JRG said:

I think we are going to see something happen today from behind the closed doors.

 

June 1 is Monday,  and with that being the deadline,   I think we will hear something today after 4:00 est before the weekend.

 

 

 

 

June 1 is Tuesday, Monday is the holiday.

[lisajm]

On 5/9/2021 at 7:23 PM, mom says said:

Has common sense become that uncommon?

- who swims laps in a ship pool? 4 strokes and its time to turn. If its that necessary, then swim early or late to minimize others in the pool

- if the pool is crowded, don't get in. 

- if someone else is doing laps, then you do yours on the other side of the pool. 

- if someone is swimming laps too close to you, and you were there first, ask them to distance themselves 

 

And finally, there may not be lifeguards, but there are pool attendants.  One would hope they will monitor and restrict both pool and hot tub capacity. 

That’s a nice thought, but I have serious doubts. The pool attendants don’t even manage the chogs, so I can’t see them regulating people in the pools. 

[NantahalaCruiser]

On 5/28/2021 at 3:34 AM, BoozinCroozin said:

Yes and I think it should be mandatory and verifiable. Even though my opinion several months ago was different, but if there is a diaper face requirement for the unvaccinated, then they need to be identifiable the entire cruise. THEY are putting the entire cruise at risk and everyone should be able to protect THEIR vacation from unvaccinated ruining it. 

 

I'm sorry, we are still in a covid situation whether I agree with it or not. There is a vaccine. You choose to take it or not. It is freedom of choice, but not freedom from consequences. Those consequences can be as simple as being a diaper face 24/7 when not in the cabin all the way up to finance restitution for all others on a ship that has to return to port early. 

If a cruise line were to allow ANY unvaccinated passengers on board, then it would be the cruise line that would be "putting the entire cruise at risk," not the passengers.  Thus, the cruise line would be responsible for any financial restitution - unless they could prove that an unvaccinated passenger was intentionally grossly negligent in their on-board actions: e.g. intentionally contaminating food with bodily fluids!

[chengkp75]

17 hours ago, NantahalaCruiser said:

If a cruise line were to allow ANY unvaccinated passengers on board, then it would be the cruise line that would be "putting the entire cruise at risk," not the passengers.  Thus, the cruise line would be responsible for any financial restitution - unless they could prove that an unvaccinated passenger was intentionally grossly negligent in their on-board actions: e.g. intentionally contaminating food with bodily fluids!

If the cruise line is following the instructions of the various nations that the ship calls at, as well as the instructions of the flag state, with regards to covid, and those instructions allow for unvaccinated passengers, then it is not the cruise line's responsibility.  As a common carrier, the ship is required to provide a "reasonable care" for the passenger, and that would be defined as following the practices required by the various national health agencies.  Only if the cruise line was found to be negligent in not following those practices, would they be liable.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

If the cruise line is following the instructions of the various nations that the ship calls at, as well as the instructions of the flag state, with regards to covid, and those instructions allow for unvaccinated passengers, then it is not the cruise line's responsibility.  As a common carrier, the ship is required to provide a "reasonable care" for the passenger, and that would be defined as following the practices required by the various national health agencies.  Only if the cruise line was found to be negligent in not following those practices, would they be liable.

And then could try UNSUCCESSFULLY to sue the various national health agencies. That would be after they UNSUCCESSFULLY sued the cruise line.

[JRG]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

And then could try UNSUCCESSFULLY to sue the various national health agencies. That would be after they UNSUCCESSFULLY sued the cruise line.

 

....how about the one we heard here on cc that went something like:

 

     ..."you can't sue your cat for running over your sisters boyfriend"

 

..or something like that...

[ontheweb]

29 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

....how about the one we heard here on cc that went something like:

 

     ..."you can't sue your cat for running over your sisters boyfriend"

 

..or something like that...

I missed that one.

 

But, it is wrong. You can always sue; you just can't always win your lawsuit. And furthermore even if you win, you can't always collect the damages.

[JRG]

For lack of a better word,  it looks like the Guv has 'deemed' that crossing the gangway takes a passenger into 'international waters?"

 

We should be able to start gambling as soon as we board then,  right?  

 

 

It works for me.

 

 

[CruiserBruce]

6 minutes ago, JRG said:

For lack of a better word,  it looks like the Guv has 'deemed' that crossing the gangway takes a passenger into 'international waters?"

 

We should be able to start gambling as soon as we board then,  right?  

 

 

It works for me.

 

 

The loophole or face saving action I have been predicting...

[JRG]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

The loophole or face saving action I have been predicting...

 

That's why they might be calling him   " The Saint"   (loosely translated)

 

Locals have to know they think that he knew that FLL has some big Infra-structure plans that are just getting rolled out to "Gentrify" things up in FLL and there was no way he was going to send them (cruiseships) packing.

 

Let's face it,    FLL needs the fashion makeover and cruising keeps them coming back for more.

 

The days of the swimming mermaid in the bar at the Sheraton are gone.  (unless she is still there)

[Aquahound]

Please provide a link showing DeSantis' quote ref crossing the gangway takes passengers into international waters.  Something doesn't sound right with that quote so I'd like to read the rest for context.  

 

All I found was a Forbes article wherein a cruise line VP uttered those words, not DeSantis.  

Edited May 31, 2021 by Aquahound

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Aquahound said:

Please provide a link showing DeSantis' quote ref crossing the gangway takes passengers into international waters.  Something doesn't sound right with that quote so I'd like to read the rest for context.  

 

All I found was a Forbes article wherein a cruise line VP uttered those words, not DeSantis.  

That Forbes article made it sound to  me, like DeSantis' people claimed the "international waters" factoid and the clueless VP parroted it.  Not really giving the Gov a full pass on this, but you are right that it has not been directly attributed to him.

[richstowe]

On 5/30/2021 at 10:53 AM, ontheweb said:

You can always sue; you just can't always win your lawsuit.

Exactly which is why this tread title "I'm beginning to think the CDC may very well lose the lawsuit that Florida initiated" is wrong . Things will be settled before a final judicial decision . Things are changing fast (for the good) and this suit will eventually be dismissed as the issues involved have moved on .

[Aquahound]

On 5/31/2021 at 2:49 PM, chengkp75 said:

That Forbes article made it sound to  me, like DeSantis' people claimed the "international waters" factoid and the clueless VP parroted it.  Not really giving the Gov a full pass on this, but you are right that it has not been directly attributed to him.

 

I just read an article that said:

 

"According to Forbes, a senior VP at Celebrity Cruises is recorded saying, "We're ironing out a statement that will articulate how cruising will be different" from other Florida businesses and "as soon as you pass through (a terminal) and step on the ship, you’re no longer considered to be local. You’re now in international waters." 

 

Somehow, I think.....nay, I know.....the USCG and the Captain of the Port do not agree with that statement.  Perhaps the state can relinquish their authority but it does not change the fact that a port is not international waters.  This VP from Celebrity should probably re-think his or her verbiage.  

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, richstowe said:

Exactly which is why this tread title "I'm beginning to think the CDC may very well lose the lawsuit that Florida initiated" is wrong . Things will be settled before a final judicial decision . Things are changing fast (for the good) and this suit will eventually be dismissed as the issues involved have moved on .

As the OP who originally made the thread title, I now have to agree with you. As things change and progress, one has to keep an open mind and be willing to see that things are now different.

[richstowe]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

As the OP who originally made the thread title, I now have to agree with you. As things change and progress, one has to keep an open mind and be willing to see that things are now different.

Shame on you ! When things change you must double down on your original position only louder and with more anger . Snowflake .

[ontheweb]

10 minutes ago, richstowe said:

Shame on you ! When things change you must double down on your original position only louder and with more anger . Snowflake .

🤦‍♂️