Well, now this is interesting.....Looks like Florida may have gotten it's way.

[HappyInVan]

3 hours ago, kelleherdl said:

Thanks for your concern.  And thanks for your positive thoughts about returning to cruising.  I know you are with us in the States who are encouraged that we still have the right AND responsibility to protect our constitutional government from Federal bureaucratic overreach.

 

Let me point out the obvious. This legal dispute is a no-win situation for American cruisers, since half of the population is full vax, while the other half is not.

 

As a Canadian, I've taken note and have planned accordingly.

 

I do not take sides on American constitutional issues. Your courts will decide how Americans do things, and the consequences are yours.

 

My point is that its futile for civilians to fight the court battle in this forum. What will be, will be. 🙄

 

Instead, I recommend that you guys focus on the reality of cruising. What itineraries are available (too few), and the conditions for embarkation (uncertain)? Sensible people will be preparing alternate plans?

[kelleherdl]

5 hours ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

Thanks, POA.  Methinks there is a little bit of arrogance on the judge's side, as well.  There is some highly speculative assumptions that the cruise companies would have voluntarily made the efforts to contain the virus and restrict their sailings (and revenue) for 15 or 16 months.  

MSC did voluntarily work with EU authorities to proactively mitigate COVID’s spread and impact on cruising to restart cruises last year before any vaccine availability.  Apparently, the CDC did not even share their experience with Judge Merryday.

[Tampa Girl]

16 hours ago, kelleherdl said:

MSC did voluntarily work with EU authorities to proactively mitigate COVID’s spread and impact on cruising to restart cruises last year before any vaccine availability.  Apparently, the CDC did not even share their experience with Judge Merryday.

Both HAL and Princess did what they could to mitigate the spread aboard their ships, but that doesn't mean that the cruise lines would have voluntarily ceased all operations for 16 months.  As I observed, it is purely speculative whether they would have done so.  Maybe, maybe not, but it seemed to be a reason for Merryday's assumptions.  

[Daniel A]

11 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

Both HAL and Princess did what they could to mitigate the spread aboard their ships, but that doesn't mean that the cruise lines would have voluntarily ceased all operations for 16 months.  As I observed, it is purely speculative whether they would have done so.  Maybe, maybe not, but it seemed to be a reason for Merryday's assumptions.  

I don't think Judge Merryday was endorsing the concept that the cruise lines were capable of independently managing Covid.  His point was that the CDC was ignoring the voluntary progress that the cruise lines were enacting.  I think he was making reference to the Healthy Sail Panel guidance which came out six weeks before the CSO and was completely ignored by the CDC as if the cruise industry was doing nothing to self regulate.  That said, I think his main point was that the self regulation was only one of several important considerations that the CDC chose to ignore and used the fact that they were ignoring these considerations as justification for why the CDC needed to compel the cruise industry to comply with the CDC's ideas.

[POA1]

Let me distill this down to its essence. The circuit court judge (Merryday) asked the CDC for scientific refutation of Florida's position. Florida had boatloads (Cruise Pun) of scientific testimony that was attested to by medical professionals and scientists - by name.

 

The court asked the CDC to respond in kind. They failed to do so.

 

Some people might chalk this up to politics, but it's really not. The CDC was asked to bring the science. They opted not to.

Edited July 10, 2021 by POA1

[Tampa Girl]

1 hour ago, POA1 said:

Let me distill this down to its essence. The circuit court judge (Merryday) asked the CDC for scientific refutation of Florida's position. Florida had boatloads (Cruise Pun) of scientific testimony that was attested to by medical professionals and scientists - by name.

 

The court asked the CDC to respond in kind. They failed to do so.

 

Some people might chalk this up to politics, but it's really not. The CDC was asked to bring the science. They opted not to.

 

While that is correct, it is my opinion that the Judge could have taken judicial notice of these "boatloads" of scientific evidence, including the contradictory evidence.  That was within the court's ability to do so.  Instead, the Court's statement appeared to blithely ignore the evidence that has been broadly circulating for over a year.  You may believe that his esteemed Honor was not being political, but that is not my opinion.  But, yes, CDC badly dropped the ball on both failing to produce ample evidence that the virus spreads rapidly on cruise ships and on CDC's authority to impose the restrictions.   Conclusion:  Neither party looked gets my vote.

[Daniel A]

1 minute ago, Tampa Girl said:

Instead, the Court's statement appeared to blithely ignore the evidence that has been broadly circulating for over a year.  

The Judge cannot consider evidence not admitted into the record.  Each side has the ability to challenge the admissibility of evidence.  The CDC chose not to submit evidence to support their conclusions - possibly because successful defense of the evidence would be questionable.  CDC also refused to submit a recommended pared down injunction which needed to be backed up with specifically articulated studies.   Why won't the CDC even attempt to justify it's positions?

[Tampa Girl]

50 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

The Judge cannot consider evidence not admitted into the record.  Each side has the ability to challenge the admissibility of evidence.  The CDC chose not to submit evidence to support their conclusions - possibly because successful defense of the evidence would be questionable.  CDC also refused to submit a recommended pared down injunction which needed to be backed up with specifically articulated studies.   Why won't the CDC even attempt to justify it's positions?

 

The Florida Evidence Code does allow the court, on its own motion, to take judicial notice of 1) "facts that are that are not subject to dispute because they are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or 2) facts not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned."

 

This is not to say that the ultimate conclusion rendered by these source is undisputed.  It is, however, an undisputed fact that these various opinions exist and should have required further evidence to support the plaintiff's (State of Florida) position.  After all, it is the plaintiff that had the burden, and there was common knowledge that ample evidence existed on both sides of the controversy.  For this reason, I believe that the court's total rejection of the CDC's position was arbitrary and a little arrogant.  But, again, the  CDC's failure to adequately respond is difficult to understand.  At the very least I would have expected a memorandum on its legislative parameters.  Enough of this, however, and I will leave it at that.

 

 

[richwmn]

2 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

The Florida Evidence Code does allow the court, on its own motion, to take judicial notice of 1) "facts that are that are not subject to dispute because they are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or 2) facts not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned."

Your quote does not support your contention. The facts you allude to are subject to dispute and are the basis for the suit.

[Daniel A]

13 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

The Florida Evidence Code does allow the court, on its own motion, to take judicial notice of 1) "facts that are that are not subject to dispute because they are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or 2) facts not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned."

 

This is not to say that the ultimate conclusion rendered by these source is undisputed.  It is, however, an undisputed fact that these various opinions exist and should have required further evidence to support the plaintiff's (State of Florida) position.  After all, it is the plaintiff that had the burden, and there was common knowledge that ample evidence existed on both sides of the controversy.  For this reason, I believe that the court's total rejection of the CDC's position was arbitrary and a little arrogant.  But, again, the  CDC's failure to adequately respond is difficult to understand.  At the very least I would have expected a memorandum on its legislative parameters.  Enough of this, however, and I will leave it at that.

 

 

I would be interested in finding out specifically what evidence Judge Merryday should have given Judicial Notice to.  I'm not convinced that it is the Judge's job to enhance the legal argument of either party.  If the CDC had specific evidence the Court should give Judicial Notice to there was nothing stopping the CDC from making such a motion.  They didn't.  But, again, exactly what additional evidence should Judge Merryday have give Judicial Notice to?

[POA1]

2 hours ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

While that is correct, it is my opinion that the Judge could have taken judicial notice of these "boatloads" of scientific evidence, including the contradictory evidence.  That was within the court's ability to do so.  Instead, the Court's statement appeared to blithely ignore the evidence that has been broadly circulating for over a year.  You may believe that his esteemed Honor was not being political, but that is not my opinion.  But, yes, CDC badly dropped the ball on both failing to produce ample evidence that the virus spreads rapidly on cruise ships and on CDC's authority to impose the restrictions.   Conclusion:  Neither party looked gets my vote.

 

If you believe that the Court needed to investigate and provide the information for the CDC's response, you must have a really low opinion of the agency. I know they were really busy with the whole "Please don't poop in the pool campaign," but one would think that they'd have their information ready to go.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/07/04/cdc-animations-this-is-what-diarrhea-in-the-swimming-pool-looks-like/

[Daniel A]

29 minutes ago, POA1 said:

 

If you believe that the Court needed to investigate and provide the information for the CDC's response, you must have a really low opinion of the agency. I know they were really busy with the whole "Please don't poop in the pool campaign," but one would think that they'd have their information ready to go.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/07/04/cdc-animations-this-is-what-diarrhea-in-the-swimming-pool-looks-like/

I think they had the poop campaign all set to go before the lawsuit.  I think they're spending millions on a new campaign to convince people not to stick their fingers in electric sockets...especially if you're on a cruise ship.

[POA1]

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I think they had the poop campaign all set to go before the lawsuit.  I think they're spending millions on a new campaign to convince people not to stick their fingers in electric sockets...especially if you're on a cruise ship.

Safety tip: If you are going to stick your fingers in an outlet aboard ship, bring one of those adapters.

[rkacruiser]

5 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not convinced that it is the Judge's job to enhance the legal argument of either party.

 

That is not the job of a Judge.  

[HappyInVan]

Just in.... the NCL forum is discussing.... NCL sues State of Florida about the vaccine passport ban!

 

Looks like Florida will have another day in court. Will CCL follow NCL??

[rkacruiser]

Just now, HappyInVan said:

Just in.... the NCL forum is discussing.... NCL sues State of Florida about the vaccine passport ban!

 

Looks like Florida will have another day in court. Will CCL follow NCL??

 

And, this soap opera continues.  I am starting to run out of popcorn.  

[KirkNC]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/13/norwegian-cruise-line-sues-florida-surgeon-general-to-end-vaccine-passport-ban-.html
 

 

[kazu]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

And, this soap opera continues.  I am starting to run out of popcorn.  

 

56 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/13/norwegian-cruise-line-sues-florida-surgeon-general-to-end-vaccine-passport-ban-.html
 

 

 

Good!  I have no plans of sailing out of the U.S. until this is settled.  A shame as we used to spend 3 days there pre or post cruise (or both) and spent money.  The Governor’s choice and ours as well 😉 

Europe at least requires vaccination, thankfully.

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, kazu said:

Good!  I have no plans of sailing out of the U.S. until this is settled

 

I have decided I have no plans of cruising from where to where until masks are not required by anyone and all of the legal and logistical obstacles are eliminated. 

 

The experiences of those booked on the Seabourn Odyssey cruises from Barbados this Summer and Fall are enough to say--at least to me--want more stress and uncertainty?  Please, send your money to support such an "adventure".  

 

Oh, and by the way, is your blood pressure prescription up to date if you decide to pay for such an "adventure".  

 

 

[kazu]

23 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I have decided I have no plans of cruising from where to where until masks are not required by anyone and all of the legal and logistical obstacles are eliminated. 

 

The experiences of those booked on the Seabourn Odyssey cruises from Barbados this Summer and Fall are enough to say--at least to me--want more stress and uncertainty?  Please, send your money to support such an "adventure".  

 

Oh, and by the way, is your blood pressure prescription up to date if you decide to pay for such an "adventure".  

 

 

 

Not sure why you are quoting me on this one but since you are.

 

Yes, I have cruises booked for next year and yes, HAL’s statement has been pretty clear for those that are vaccinated.  No masks in most situations.

And no, my blood pressure subscription isn’t up to date - I don’t have one 😉. If I can get through covid and all the malarkey then I guess I am good to go. 😉 

 

Your decision is yours and mine is mine.  Our final payment is far away and all my flights are cancellable so life is good.  But unless things change dramatically and as long as the vaccine gets where needed, we’re going. 😄 

 

We are just NOT sailing out of the U.S. 😉 

[rafinmd]

22 hours ago, kazu said:

 

 

Good!  I have no plans of sailing out of the U.S. until this is settled.  A shame as we used to spend 3 days there pre or post cruise (or both) and spent money.  The Governor’s choice and ours as well 😉 

Europe at least requires vaccination, thankfully.

Why would you not sail out of the US.  I see no reason not to sail our of Seattle, San Diego, New York, Boston, or Norflok if HAL decided to go back there.  Am I missing something?

 

Roy

[kazu]

5 minutes ago, rafinmd said:

Why would you not sail out of the US.  I see no reason not to sail our of Seattle, San Diego, New York, Boston, or Norflok if HAL decided to go back there.  Am I missing something?

 

Roy

 

HAL sails out of New York?  When did that happen?  I would happily sail out of New York.  It’s a well vaccinated spot. 👍 

I was thinking of FLL which is where most of my cruises have sailed from.  

And to be frank, until the U.S. gets more people vaccinated everywhere uniformly,  no I have no interest to be there.  No disrespect meant in my reply but honestly, the anti-vax attitude is scary and so will be the variants.

Unless things change when/if we arrive in FLL next year we will be outa there fast.  We would normally stay for 3 days and enjoy the weather, food, etc.  But, if things don’t change, we will fly out the same day asap.

 

 

 

[rkacruiser]

25 minutes ago, kazu said:

Your decision is yours and mine is mine.

 

Surely.  No offense made and I apologize if my post was read in such a way that it was offensive to you.

 

My point is simple.  If I am unable to cruise again within reasonable requirements (which I will determine when I learn of them) that are acceptable to me, I will not be cruising again.  

 

Will I regret such a decision?  One had better believe it.  But, my physical condition has changed, significantly, since I last cruised in 2019-2020.  Traveling then, cruising then, was a challenge, but one that I could endure.  If the new

25 minutes ago, kazu said:

Disregard this.  Unsure how this got into my post.

requirements that I must meet to enjoy a trip--be it anywhere or on whatever means of transport--are too cumbersome for me to meet, it would be an unwise decision to spend the money--and effort required--on an experience that would be unsatisfactory.  

Edited July 15, 2021 by rkacruiser

[kazu]

23 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

Surely.  No offense made and I apologize if my post was read in such a way that it was offensive to you.

 

My point is simple.  If I am unable to cruise again within reasonable requirements (which I will determine when I learn of them) that are acceptable to me, I will not be cruising again.  

 

Will I regret such a decision?  One had better believe it.  But, my physical condition has changed, significantly, since I last cruised in 2019-2020.  Traveling then, cruising then, was a challenge, but one that I could endure. 

 

No worries 😉 😄 

 

I totally understand and we are doing the same.  We are prepared to cruise with an understanding of what we THINK the parameters will be and as time unfolds, we’ll all have more insight.

We each have to do what is right for ourselves.  There’s no point in cruising if you won’ enjoy it. 😉 

[harkinmr]

11th Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed the lower court’s injunction pending appeal.  Opinions will follow. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9799441/Court-stays-judges-ruling-CDC-enforce-COVID-cruise-ship-rules-July-18.html