Judge: Florida and CDC Still At An Impass

[jsglow]

20 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

It is absurd to think the CDC is anything but apolitical. Data, as in vaccinations and dropping cases are why things are opening. But vaccinations are not a complete answer. Additional mitigation is still required. 

We disagree.  Let's leave it at that.

Edited June 12, 2021 by jsglow

[MrMarc]

24 minutes ago, jsglow said:

Okay Blerk, you bring valuable info to this board but your political bias shows through very brightly.  One has to be quite naive to believe they aren't politically motivated now as well.  NOTHING in the science changed in early May yet they did a complete 180 because that's what the new boss needed politically.  Now to the extent that it opened things up, great.  But it was still politics.

What complete 180 in May are you talking about?  The changing of mask requirements for vaccinated people?  That was based on continuing studies looking at how vaccinated people were shedding the virus if they had it.  The theory has been that they would not shed enough to be contagious, but the studies were, and still are, ongoing.  I have no doubt that they put that off as long as they could to avoid the social issues that this two tier system is causing.  They knew it would.

[cscurlock]

48 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Another complication is that The Port of Galveston does receive State funding, which might or might not complicate the Texas situation.

It could be a complication. If anything they could follow Florida's lead and the state could take control of the ports.   I don't think that will happen but who knows.

[TNcruising02]

Carnival is already flushing out the unvaccinated by telling them they can’t sail in July and August. By the time July cruises get here there will only be vaccinated passengers booked in Texas and Florida. 

[MrMarc]

11 minutes ago, cscurlock said:

It could be a complication. If anything they could follow Florida's lead and the state could take control of the ports.   I don't think that will happen but who knows.

I think the only way we are going to find out is for a cruise line to ask for it, and then see what the State does.  The only other options I could think of would be to ask a State Court for a Declaratory Judgement, or for an authorized person (I think the head of the Port Authority might qualify under Texas law) to ask the  Attorney General for an opinion.

[ultrafighter]

1 hour ago, MrMarc said:

Another complication is that The Port of Galveston does receive State funding, which might or might not complicate the Texas situation.

If they need donations to *an unnamed online crowd fundraising platform* so that isn't a problem anymore and we can start sailing again, just send me the link!!!

Edited June 12, 2021 by ultrafighter

[MrMarc]

1 minute ago, ultrafighter said:

If they need donations to a ***** so that isn't a problem anymore and we can start sailing again, just send me the link!!!

That would be an interesting solution, crowded funded cruise ports.🤣

[MrMarc]

Wait, I don't know why none of us thought about this before.  Let's ask Elon Musk how to solve it!

[cscurlock]

1 minute ago, MrMarc said:

I think the only way we are going to find out is for a cruise line to ask for it, and then see what the State does.  The only other options I could think of would be to ask a State Court for a Declaratory Judgement, or for an authorized person (I think the head of the Port Authority might qualify under Texas law) to ask the  Attorney General for an opinion.

Personally I am hoping someone gets fined so they can challenge it so they can end it nationwide.  That would just take another artificial barrier out of the way for the cruise lines to decide what they want to do.

[MrMarc]

2 minutes ago, cscurlock said:

Personally I am hoping someone gets fined so they can challenge it so they can end it nationwide.  That would just take another artificial barrier out of the way for the cruise lines to decide what they want to do.

I'm willing to bet there is a team of attorneys and a business planning this already.  I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened yet. I believe that the fine is a civil penalty, so I am not sure where in the court system that process would begin.

[TNcruising02]

55 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Wait, I don't know why none of us thought about this before.  Let's ask Elon Musk how to solve it!

He could tweet it since his tweets are golden.

[ontheweb]

5 hours ago, MrMarc said:

Wow, I'm not used to having people say they agree with me.

Keep posting good stuff, and you may have to get used to it.😃

[cscurlock]

3 hours ago, MrMarc said:

I'm willing to bet there is a team of attorneys and a business planning this already.  I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened yet. I believe that the fine is a civil penalty, so I am not sure where in the court system that process would begin.

Civil penalty for foreign business on a foreign flagged vessel resides strictly under the purview of Congress not a state as it would interfere with their business operations which cruising is considered international commerce.  That would begin in state federal court.

[MrMarc]

1 hour ago, cscurlock said:

Civil penalty for foreign business on a foreign flagged vessel resides strictly under the purview of Congress not a state as it would interfere with their business operations which cruising is considered international commerce.  That would begin in state federal court.

I believe it would depend on how the business is set up.  The shore operations might be operated under a foreign corporation but be registered 8n the state, which would give the State Courts jurisdiction over them.  And honestly I don't know which court would have jurisdiction over civil fines, as that seems to be a qusi-criminal proceeding.  Then again, I don't know who the health department would issue the citation to.  For example, when docked, the ship has to have a local liquor license and collect state taxes.  So basically I'm taking a long time to say I don't know, so you may well be correct.

[cscurlock]

3 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

I believe it would depend on how the business is set up.  The shore operations might be operated under a foreign corporation but be registered 8n the state, which would give the State Courts jurisdiction over them.  And honestly I don't know which court would have jurisdiction over civil fines, as that seems to be a qusi-criminal proceeding.  Then again, I don't know who the health department would issue the citation to.  For example, when docked, the ship has to have a local liquor license and collect state taxes.  So basically I'm taking a long time to say I don't know, so you may well be correct.

Those notable exceptions are in the constitution and specifically spelled out.  As far as levying fines that can impact a foreign flagged vessels business operation only congress can pass a law to do that.  States have no such power.   

[MrMarc]

1 minute ago, cscurlock said:

Those notable exceptions are in the constitution and specifically spelled out.  As far as levying fines that can impact a foreign flagged vessels business operation only congress can pass a law to do that.  States have no such power.   

But my point is that the State seems to exercise some control over the operation of some activities on the ship itself.  And the activities in violation of the state law would occur at the check-in point, before boarding the ship.  So, to me,there is an overlap of State, Federal, and International jurisdictions going on, otherwise I would totally agree with you.

[harkinmr]

On 6/11/2021 at 8:31 PM, WhaleTailFlCruiser said:

It feels like the CDC hired the cheapest lawyers possible is they can’t overcome this case

Overcome the case?  The case is still ongoing and their is no decision as yet on the preliminary injunction demanded by the state.  Maybe the "cheap lawyers" are working for the state. 😉  Would like to remind you that the state lawyers are government works too.  Just sayin...

[harkinmr]

On 6/12/2021 at 1:47 PM, IntrepidFromDC said:

According to my retired neighbor, who was a government lawyer for many years, government lawyers are less "hungry" (read aggressive/motivated) and are paid less than private practice in general.  

May be true, but just remember that the lawyers representing the State of Florida are paid less and are also government workers, not private practice counsel.  I worked with many government lawyers (state and federal) over a 30 legal year career, and they were just as competent in their practice (and sometimes more so) than the private practice attorneys I worked with.  The problem with private practice is that too many lawyers get caught up in their credentials and not enough in what they are supposed to do for their clients.  Hazard of the profession.

Edited June 14, 2021 by harkinmr

[Keys2Heaven]

I'm not a lawyer, nor will I pretend to be, but I have a question for anyone who is or who at least knows more about legal issues than I do.

Regarding the decision of the federal judge this weekend to toss the lawsuit by unvaccinated workers employed by Houston Methodist, does this not set a precedent that unvaccinated workers are not a protected class. And, if that is the case, doesn't this led more weight towards the cruise lines following the CDC and therefore are o.k. with requiring proof of vaccination?

I find this quote by the judge interesting:

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes said, “This is not coercion. Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

After all, isn't this what the cruise lines are trying to do?

Edited June 14, 2021 by Keys2Heaven

[TNcruising02]

17 minutes ago, Keys2Heaven said:

I'm not a lawyer, nor will I pretend to be, but I have a question for anyone who is or who at least knows more about legal issues than I do.

Regarding the decision of the federal judge this weekend to toss the lawsuit by unvaccinated workers employed by Houston Methodist, does this not set a precedent that unvaccinated workers are not a protected class. And, if that is the case, doesn't this led more weight towards the cruise lines following the CDC and therefore are o.k. with requiring proof of vaccination?

I find this quote by the judge interesting:

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes said, “This is not coercion. Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

After all, isn't this what the cruise lines are trying to do?

Would this only apply to medical facilities in Texas as setting a precedent?

Edited June 14, 2021 by TNcruising02

[Keys2Heaven]

12 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

Would this only apply to medical facilities in Texas as setting a precedent?

I don't know, which is why I asked. To me, the laymen, it appears that the judge is saying as much by not allowing the lawsuit to go forward.

Just curious if this decision might have any impact on the current Florida case.

[TNcruising02]

Just now, Keys2Heaven said:

I don't know, which is why I asked. To me, the laymen, it appears that the judge is saying as much by not allowing the lawsuit to go forward.

Just curious if this decision might have any impact on the current Florida case.

It seems like state cases would set precedents in the state in which they were taken to court, unless it goes to the federal level.  So maybe now all hospitals in Texas can deny employment based on vaccination status.  I have no clue though.  The closest I have come to learning about the law is watching Law & Order.  LOL.  Hopefully, an attorney will answer your question.

[crewsweeper]

1 minute ago, Keys2Heaven said:

I don't know, which is why I asked. To me, the laymen, it appears that the judge is saying as much by not allowing the lawsuit to go forward.

Just curious if this decision might have any impact on the current Florida case.

If the judge is a Texas judge, not a Federal judge, and the suit is specific to Houston Methodist, doubtful a FL judge would pay any attention unless there are  statutes similar to Texas' statutes applicable in FL>

[BlerkOne]

5 minutes ago, crewsweeper said:

If the judge is a Texas judge, not a Federal judge, and the suit is specific to Houston Methodist, doubtful a FL judge would pay any attention unless there are  statutes similar to Texas' statutes applicable in FL>

On Saturday, a federal court ruling upheld the right of private employers to require all of their employees to get the COVID-19 shots, just as employers have already been permitted to order employees to get flu shots and other vaccines.

 

The ruling in Texas is setting precedent nationwide, including in Georgia where two-thirds of the people are not fully vaccinated, and may not want the shots, ever.

As it is under the ruling, workers have no rights of refusal, at all, other than to prove they have a religious or medical exemption; or they can simply quit.

[Keys2Heaven]

8 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

On Saturday, a federal court ruling upheld the right of private employers to require all of their employees to get the COVID-19 shots, just as employers have already been permitted to order employees to get flu shots and other vaccines.

 

The ruling in Texas is setting precedent nationwide, including in Georgia where two-thirds of the people are not fully vaccinated, and may not want the shots, ever.

As it is under the ruling, workers have no rights of refusal, at all, other than to prove they have a religious or medical exemption; or they can simply quit.

Right, and since workers are "at will" employees for a private business and can go work someplace else if they don't like the rules, wouldn't the same apply to consumers who can take their business elsewhere if they don't like the rules enacted by a private business?

Wouldn't this essentially nullify what Florida is trying to do? I mean how is a private business mandating a vaccine in the name of public health and safety any different from the CDC who has established protocols for the cruising industry in the name of public health and safety. And how would the cruise lines be wrong in asking for proof as part of the screening protocols?

I feel this judge's decision is very important to the case in Florida.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Keys2Heaven