Official: Mediation in lawsuit against federal gov., CDC over cruising shutdown has failed

[jrapps]

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

When you say "we'll" I take that to mean "I'll". Florida filed a motion for an injunction and then the judge sent them to mediation. The CDC didn't have a choice.

Don't use logic and common sense. If they win, they are vindicated. If they lose, it was rigged.

 

You can't have a rational conversation with someone who isn't open to the possibility that they are wrong.

[firefly333]

2 hours ago, BeancounterUSA said:

If a mediation "fails" then I have a hard time believing it was really a mediation, but rather another venue in which both sides restate their position.

 

A true mediation from my experience, has a mediator, who makes a decision both parties are bound by.  Having been involved in a corporate mediation some years ago, I can say that it's my opinion that mediators have a goal of ending the dispute with both parties about equally unhappy. 

 

My experience is that it's often the norm to send both parties to mandated mediation. I had a upstairs neighbor who put in a laundry sink, the pipe came loose. There was water cascading in a waterfall over the balcony. He promised to help lay new flooring but didnt and said so sue me ....I sued him.

 

It was required we do mediation, and both of had to pay a mediator. We reached no compromise  he was still being a jerk. So we went to court. Lol he appealed and we went to palm beach where the state court is. They told him he couldnt introduce new information, just the proof from the first trial. I won. 

 

Anyway ..mediation was required to go to court. I know nothing to suggest the mediator usually gets both parties to agree.  We didnt.

[boatseller]

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

When you say "we'll" I take that to mean "I'll". Florida filed a motion for an injunction and then the judge sent them to mediation. The CDC didn't have a choice.

My side.

 

BTW...

"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."

 

Translation: Eh, we really have no idea because differences and reasons and numbers.  Sounds like their failed outdoor transmission estimate.

[Pratique]

1 minute ago, boatseller said:

My side.

 

BTW...

"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."

 

Translation: Eh, we really have no idea because differences and reasons and numbers.  Sounds like their failed outdoor transmission estimate.

I agree with you on that, but that is not the legal standard. The court is looking for arbitrary and capricious violations of civil rights. It's usually a pretty high bar. Keep in mind that judge agreed that the CDC exceeded it's authority, but she also believes that the CDC has an overriding interest in maintaining the eviction ban until the appeals court weighs in. And yesterday the appeals court agreed with the CDC, so the injunction is still on hold. That same scenario could very well happen here too.

[jalves]

Whatever side you are on, the next step is for the Judge to issue a ruling in favor of one side or the other.  Once that happens one side or the other will appeal the ruling.  

 

Meanwhile, the discussion here on CC will continue to churn.

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, jalves said:

Whatever side you are on, the next step is for the Judge to issue a ruling in favor of one side or the other.  Once that happens one side or the other will appeal the ruling.  

 

Meanwhile, the discussion here on CC will continue to churn.

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

[boatseller]

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I agree with you on that, but that is not the legal standard. The court is looking for arbitrary and capricious violations of civil rights. It's usually a pretty high bar. Keep in mind that judge agreed that the CDC exceeded it's authority, but she also believes that the CDC has an overriding interest in maintaining the eviction ban until the appeals court weighs in. And yesterday the appeals court agreed with the CDC, so the injunction is still on hold. That same scenario could very well happen here too.

In my view, and a lot of other people, the NSO is entirely arbitrary because it affects only the cruise lines and not the airlines.  I flew packed flights during the scarey Thanksgiving season.  CDC didn't have a problem with that despite their Section 264 authority over inter state spread.

 

And let's not begin to ask why theme parks have been open and packed for months with just superficial protocols.

 

This is probaby why I'm so...passionate about this.  I go to a park almost every day and everyone, 10k's, is totally fine with it, especially now at Universal and SeaWorld (and hopefully Disney soon).  Yet the CDC is stuck on stupid with cruise ships.

 

More people will be crammed into the queue for VelociCoaster in 2 hrs than an entire Oasis class sailing.  And yes, they're closer than 6 ft for more than 15 minutes.  Way closer, way longer.

 

Until someone can explain why flying and attraction queues are like totally fine, no worries, wash your hands...while cruise ships are reaper conventions, I won't stop.  And any ruling in favor of the CDC wrong.  End of story.

[Pratique]

2 minutes ago, boatseller said:

Until someone can explain why flying and attraction queues are like totally fine, no worries, wash your hands...while cruise ships are reaper conventions, I won't stop.  And any ruling in favor of the CDC wrong.  End of story.

A few months ago (pre-vaccine) I posted here that I thought the cruise industry was being held to an entirely different standard than any other travel sector (especially airlines), and I was chided for being naïve about the unique risks posed by cruise ships. Oh they are petri dishes. Oh they are far away from hospitals. Etc. Well that was then... Now it seems the tide has turned. It is what it is. Either cruising is special or it isn't. Or maybe it's not so black and white. I don't know anymore, but I do believe with all of the sanitation that I would rather be on a ship than just about anywhere else.

[ONECRUISER]

1 hour ago, TrulyBlonde said:

The Hill and NPR both stated mid May that 50% of Americans do not have faith in the CDC and FDA. Google is your friend. Those are both Liberal websites which I am sure you frequent. 

Agree, did quick check and reading 10 Polls showing drops 8-14% in just last 6 months for CDC, NIH and Fauci. Were above Water in 2020, below in May/June 2021. These from CNN, NPR, MSN. Few Titles included:  Poll Finds Public Health Has A Trust Problem and Public Lost Trust in CDC During Covid Crisis...

[boatseller]

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

A few months ago (pre-vaccine) I posted here that I thought the cruise industry was being held to an entirely different standard than any other travel sector (especially airlines), and I was chided for being naïve about the unique risks posed by cruise ships. Oh they are petri dishes. Oh they are far away from hospitals. Etc. Well that was then... Now it seems the tide has turned. It is what it is. Either cruising is special or it isn't. Or maybe it's not so black and white. I don't know anymore, but I do believe with all of the sanitation that I would rather be on a ship than just about anywhere else.

Then welcome to the cause!

 

Oh, gosh, did I just quote Rey....I'm losing it....

[rolloman]

2 hours ago, jrapps said:

 

 

I still maintain FL has no cards to play here. If they did, they would have been played.

Oh...Florida has a card to play and it is a big one....approve sailings regardless of what the CDC says.

[Pratique]

4 minutes ago, boatseller said:

Then welcome to the cause!

 

Oh, gosh, did I just quote Rey....I'm losing it....

Well, not really. I would prefer that the cruise lines work this out without Florida's interference. Maybe the lawsuit is a stimulus, but it's a clumsy one with a real chance of backfiring. When you go into court you put your fate in the hands of the judge. I'd rather have more control over the outcome.

[wreckem2013]

4 minutes ago, rolloman said:

Oh...Florida has a card to play and it is a big one....approve sailings regardless of what the CDC says.

Florida can say whatever it wants but until the courts rule in their favor or the Feds change their mind ships won’t be sailing from Florida. Simply put there are multiple federal agencies involved in cruise lines sailing with passengers and they will follow the CDCs orders until those orders are changed or overruled by courts. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the courts. Even if Florida does get a preliminary injunction(which is 50/50 at best), it will be stayed while the issue is appealed.

[jrapps]

4 minutes ago, boatseller said:

To be clear, you haven't stated any real opinion, just sections of the law that I pointed you to.

My opinion is that the NSO and CSO are legal, and within the jurisdiction given to them by the statues quoted. They seek to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases. Yes they are applying different rules to planes, theme parks , and cruise ships. They are different entities. Using the methods of one situation as justification to object to a different situation does not give the argument validation. Given the high profile public nature of Covid outbreaks on cruise ships at the beginning of the pandemic, and from what I have read of the authority given to the CDC, I see nothing to indicate they abused their power. Do I like the fact that cruises are still shut down? Nope. Do i think the CDC overstepped their authority? Nope.

 

If a judge rules otherwise, so be it. 

 

My objection to our argument wasn't the differing of our opinions. It's when someone takes the "I'm right no matter what" that I find objectionable. If the CDCs actions are upheld by a court of law, many here will claim it is rigged, the judge kicked the can, or find some other excuse to justify why they are still right even after losing in court.

 

I see no need to continue arguing. I have no beef with you personally. We interpret the legal situation differently. 

[jtwind]

Haven't most surveys shown that the vast majority of cruisers don't want to sail unless almost everyone is vaccinated?

[harkinmr]

35 minutes ago, rolloman said:

Oh...Florida has a card to play and it is a big one....approve sailings regardless of what the CDC says.

“Approve sailings”?  Florida has no ability to approve or disapprove sailings.  That is the CDC’s call until the statutes change or the courts rule otherwise. 

[Pratique]

21 minutes ago, jrapps said:

My opinion is that the NSO and CSO are legal, and within the jurisdiction given to them by the statues quoted.

In my view they lie in a gray area. I think that if the CDC had gone through the normal public rulemaking process then they would be OK, but instead they continue to rely on the emergency declaration to impose their will without due process. This can't go on forever, but the question is when is enough enough? I don't know.

 

I also think that Florida is the wrong party to be pressing the issue in court. If anyone should be in court, it should be the cruise lines. But they chose to do it differently, and I respect that decision. The parallel lawsuit has all the earmarks of political grandstanding in that the state seems to care more about money than how the cruise lines will deal with the fallout of all this. Even if Florida gets its way and the CDC withdraws the CSO, the cruise lines still need to implement their plans in the way that they see fit and this effort by the state doesn't seem to be taking that into consideration.

[jrapps]

3 minutes ago, Pratique said:

In my view they lie in a gray area. I think that if the CDC had gone through the normal public rulemaking process then they would be OK, but instead they continue to rely on the emergency declaration to impose their will without due process. This can't go on forever, but the question is when is enough enough? I don't know.

 

I also think that Florida is the wrong party to be pressing the issue in court. If anyone should be in court, it should be the cruise lines. But they chose to do it differently, and I respect that decision. The parallel lawsuit has all the earmarks of political grandstanding in that the state seems to care more about money than how the cruise lines will deal with the fallout of all this. Even if Florida gets its way and the CDC withdraws the CSO, the cruise lines still need to implement their plans in the way that they see fit and this effort by the state doesn't seem to be taking that into consideration.

Regardless of how this lawsuit goes I would love to see the constitutionality of the vaccine passport ban challenged in a court of law. Unfortunately I don't see it happening. I think the cruise lines themselves would be reluctant to sue the state first. If a cruise line decided to just go ahead and ignore it like celebrities plan, The state would just levy exorbitant fines which celebrity likely won't pay. Then it would be up to the state to sue the cruise line and by that point it'll be 3 years from now and all this will be a distant memory.

[Pratique]

5 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Regardless of how this lawsuit goes I would love to see the constitutionality of the vaccine passport ban challenged in a court of law. Unfortunately I don't see it happening.

Probably not. Generally restraints against commerce need to be supported by a rational and legitimate government interest (I think that's the standard IIRC). Here it's just about preventing potential "discrimination" even though vaccination status is not (yet) a protected class. Honestly if everyone cared so much about preventing discrimination then everyone should also be on board with ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment. But I dream. lol

[rolloman]

32 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

“Approve sailings”?  Florida has no ability to approve or disapprove sailings.  That is the CDC’s call until the statutes change or the courts rule otherwise. 

What part don't you get....Florida is a State with its own Government, therefore in reality, Florida can do what Florida wants to do. The CDC is a Federal agency which in reality has nothing to do with how the State of Florida governs its people....

[harkinmr]

7 minutes ago, rolloman said:

What part don't you get....Florida is a State with its own Government, therefore in reality, Florida can do what Florida wants to do. The CDC is a Federal agency which in reality has nothing to do with how the State of Florida governs its people....

And what you don’t get is that state authority is limited by the Constitution. The federal government has jurisdiction over matters of interstate and international commerce. Cruise companies operate in both realms. The State of Florida does not have jurisdiction to authorize sailings in contravention of federal law.  

[coldflame]

3 hours ago, TrulyBlonde said:

Yes, but....the latest news does not bode well for NIH nor CDC. I think DeSantis knows this and is holding the cards. Public perception of Fauci, NIH, and CDC is in the toilet. Don't you think it is coincidental that CDC removed the mask mandate in the last few weeks? They all knew these emails were coming out and part of their damage control. Just my opinion.

 

So your bias is sipping through here. Judges don't decide cases on bias -- in fact that's why they're judges and why they exist. YOU (and maybe your friends) think the NIH and CDC have no credibility but that has zero merit as a legal claim.

[coldflame]

17 minutes ago, rolloman said:

What part don't you get....Florida is a State with its own Government, therefore in reality, Florida can do what Florida wants to do. The CDC is a Federal agency which in reality has nothing to do with how the State of Florida governs its people....

 

Someone failed civic class. Interstate/international travel is a Federal matter. Neither FL nor any state has jurisdiction over international or interstate travel -- this is why the FAA/DHS/Border Patrol exist.

Edited June 3, 2021 by coldflame

[rolloman]

6 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

And what you don’t get is that state authority is limited by the Constitution. The federal government has jurisdiction over matters of interstate and international commerce. Cruise companies operate in both realms. The State of Florida does not have jurisdiction to authorize sailings in contravention of federal law.  

Oh I get it...but if Florida loses enough revenue to operate because of a Federal agency (who has lost all credibility) Florida has the option to decide to no longer be a part of the club....

[coldflame]

Just now, rolloman said:

Oh I get it...but if Florida loses enough revenue to operate because of a Federal agency (who has lost all credibility) Florida has the option to decide to no longer be a part of the club....

lol ok good luck seceding from the Union.