CDC mask mandate for travelers struck down by federal judge

[Rawley]

Title 42 doesn't stop anyone from "sneaking across our borders." What it does is force people applying for asylum to be housed in dangerous, predatory migrant camps in Mexico, under the premise that "brown people carry disease." These people should be housed with dignity and safety while their cases are heard, in accordance with U.S. law.

Why would they stay in "dangerous, predatory migrant camps?" Their cases might not be heard for years

 

[Metric Mouse]

Why would they stay in "dangerous, predatory migrant camps?" Their cases might not be heard for years

Because they are fleeing persecution and violence, and thus can't return to their home countries.

 

[Gaius46]

Mizelle did what the vast majority of Americans wanted to see done.
Again, those who want to keep wearing masks (or more than one) can feel free to do so.
And just how do you qualify a federal judge after eight years on the bench?
Has anyone studied her entire record after 8 years like they did with Jackson who has a record of being soft on crime?

What the vast majority of Americans wanted to see done really doesn't matter. She ruled based on her interpretation of the law. That's her job not bowing to popular will.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Because they are fleeing persecution and violence, and thus can't return to their home countries.

What persecution are they fleeing? Ordinary crime, even at severe rates, is not a basis for an asylum claim.

 

[Rawley]

Because they are fleeing persecution and violence, and thus can't return to their home countries.

I didn't say they should. My question is why would they stay in "dangerous, predatory migrant camps" as you suggested? Why wouldn't they go and find work and homes in Mexico while they await their hearings?

 

[Metric Mouse]

I didn't say they should. My question is why would they stay in "dangerous, predatory migrant camps" as you suggested? Why wouldn't they go and find work and homes in Mexico while they await their hearings?

Because they are not from that country, and not allowed to work there. Thus they are subject to attacks, violence and victimization.

 

[Metric Mouse]

What persecution are they fleeing? Ordinary crime, even at severe rates, is not a basis for an asylum claim.

I can't speak for them. That's the point of an asylum hearing. If they don't qualify, they will be deported.

 

[Athanasius68]

Nonsense... That is NOT what the judges opinion said.. What she said was CONGRESS didn't give the CDC the power to mandate masks when it wrote the law (bullshit, but what she said nonetheless). She zeros in on sanitation then bizarrely conflates this to sanitizing while ignoring this part of the statute: "and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary." and citing the Webster's dictionary for the meaning of sanitation... Under her reading of the statute the ONLY measures the CDC can take is clean.


View attachment 67386336

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21636492/mask-mandate-order.pdf

The judge also said the mandate was arbitrary.
Considering that the administration doesn't seem to want to appeal the decision, there does seem a certain arbitrariness to it.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

About time
——-

(CNN)A federal judge in Florida struck down on Monday the Biden administration's mask mandate for airplanes and other public transport methods.

US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle said the mandate was unlawful because it exceeded the statutory authority of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and because its implementation violated administrative law.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/18/politics/cdc-mask-mandate-ruling/index.html

If the Democrats had any principles, they'd introduce a law to Congress to reinstate the ban.

Thing is, they know it's bullshit. It's all for show.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I can't speak for them. That's the point of an asylum hearing. If they don't qualify, they will be deported.

You just did speak for them by claiming they were fleeing persecution and violence.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I can't speak for them. That's the point of an asylum hearing. If they don't qualify, they will be deported.

There is no country in the world that allows all comers who claim "I need asylum" to stay in the country for years pending an asylum hearing.

And, the problem is, they are so overwhelmed now that they are releasing people without knowing addresses or having a means to contact them, and without court dates they need to show up to. They're shipping people to any location they want around the country, and there is no way to get them to a hearing.

 

[Metric Mouse]

You just did speak for them by claiming they were fleeing persecution and violence.

That's their claim. Can't say if it's legitimate or not if we don't give them a hearing. And until then, we should protect them.

 

[mrjurrs]

Unlike you I have faith in our society, our Constitution, and the intelligence of the American people to understand the threat posed by Progressive ideology to our country.
And I do not support extending federal control over voting laws in each of the different states.

Then why are you supporting states passing laws that don't have faith in our society, Constitution, or Americans intelligence?
By the way, your last statement calls into question whether you actually do support the Constitution.
Article 4, Section 1, Clause 1
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

 

[Linc]

44 cities in China with rolling variations of lockdowns say Covid isn’t over.

Pro athletes with far stricter rules are landing on Covid ILs for the 3rd year now.

 

[Gaius46]

There is no country in the world that allows all comers who claim "I need asylum" to stay in the country for years pending an asylum hearing.

And, the problem is, they are so overwhelmed now that they are releasing people without knowing addresses or having a means to contact them, and without court dates they need to show up to. They're shipping people to any location they want around the country, and there is no way to get them to a hearing.

It takes almost 5 years to have an asylum hearing. If a person really needs asylum they could well be dead - or worse - by then if they get sent back. That points to a serious problem with our asylum system - not surprising our whole immigration system is screwed up beyond words. The only humane thing to do in this case, if we don't want to spend the money to get them hearings much sooner, is to assume they will be killed if we send them back and let them stay pending the hearing.

(that may well be the only legal thing we can do. I have no idea what our treaty obligations are with respect to asylum but we may well be compelled by them to let people who've requested asylum stay in country until their claims can be verified)

 

[Rawley]

Because they are not from that country, and not allowed to work there.

They are not from this country either. They were allowed to work there before Biden ripped the Agreement we had with Mexico

Thus they are subject to attacks, violence and victimization.

You don't have a high opinions of Mexicans, huh?

 

[mrjurrs]

Still a full Article III judge. Unless you're saying some judges' opinions should be treated differently based on the time of year they were voted on?


Which has nothing at all to do with the legal reasoning behind the opinion and is 100% a worthless ad hominem attack on the judge.


Which means the opinion is flawed how?


Which means the opinion is flawed how?


If you'd read the opinion, she explains precisely why she did so. It's because limiting the enforcement of the injunction to just the parties before her is basically impossible.


Because this isn't an activist opinion. It's engaged and reasoned.

No, I'm saying she was rushed through during the time that the R senate would not approve D nominated judges. Anything for R power.

It means she is unqualified so every decision she makes will remain questionable. In this decision she made the statement that 'masks don't sanitize the person or the area'. No shit, you think she'll apply that to hospitals next?

Neither of those mean the decision is flawed? Would you hire a contractor for life if they had never built anything or been in charge of a building project?

Her making the injunction national is de fact activism. One way to limit the injunction is to limit its enforcement.

 

[Metric Mouse]

You don't have a high opinions of Mexicans, huh?

I do. But anytime that you group poor, desperate people from a foreign country together with no social services, no protection and no support, they will be disproportionately victimized by criminals.

 

[tres borrachos]

OK, tres, don't get all wadded up over a comment about Liberals.
That doesn't include you, right?
I qualified my statement by writing "other America-hating Liberals".
And I agree with your last paragraph.
You described, quite succinctly, the biggest weapon the feckless Dems have going into this November.

No, it doesn't include me. I've been a Republican since 1980. I left the Republican Party because of Trump. I am still the same person I was. I was never a liberal.

I don't use stupid right wing talking points like "Libruls hate America". They don't. That's the idiocy that Hannity feeds to the Trump devotees.

 

[Rawley]

I do. But anytime that you group poor, desperate people from a foreign country together with no social services, no protection and no support, they will be disproportionately victimized by criminals.

Again. You are talking about this "grouping" No one is forcing these people into camps. Like if they are let loose in this country, they are free to move wherever they want.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No, I'm saying she was rushed through during the time that the R senate would not approve D nominated judges. Anything for R power.

Irrelevant to the opinion.

It means she is unqualified so every decision she makes will remain questionable. In this decision she made the statement that 'masks don't sanitize the person or the area'. No shit, you think she'll apply that to hospitals next?

The sanitization clause was the one relied upon by the government to support the mandate. Of course that's what she focused on. I don't know how this might apply to hospitals. Does the CDC mandate everyone wear masks in hospitals? Does the CDC mandate anyone wear masks in hospitals? If they do, is it based on the section of law or another one that authorizes them to make mandates in health care facilities?

I don't have any idea.

Do you?

Neither of those mean the decision is flawed? Would you hire a contractor for life if they had never built anything or been in charge of a building project?

Whether or not I would hire them is irrelevant to the quality of a building they've just constructed. If you think they are so bad, point to the flaws in the building.

Her making the injunction national is de fact activism. One way to limit the injunction is to limit its enforcement.

She tells us in the opinion why this isn't feasible. Feel free to read about it or tell us why that reasoning is flawed.

 

[mrjurrs]

Irrelevant to the opinion.


The sanitization clause was the one relied upon by the government to support the mandate. Of course that's what she focused on. I don't know how this might apply to hospitals. Does the CDC mandate everyone wear masks in hospitals? Does the CDC mandate anyone wear masks in hospitals? If they do, is it based on the section of law or another one that authorizes them to make mandates in health care facilities?

I don't have any idea.

Do you?


Whether or not I would hire them is irrelevant to the quality of a building they've just constructed. If you think they are so bad, point to the flaws in the building.


She tells us in the opinion why this isn't feasible. Feel free to read about it or tell us why that reasoning is flawed.

When you say irrelevant to the opinion, I say her opinion is irrelevant to her knowledge base. Which is limited. How much judicial experience does she have? Coming up on a year. How much science does she know? Unknown. She has determined that her understanding of the law is greater than the governments understanding of science. New COVID cases in America this week? 68,075.
Deaths? 317 (that's 300 more than last week). Where do you suppose this decision would have taken us if she had gotten the case 2 years ago?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

When you say irrelevant to the opinion, I say her opinion is irrelevant to her knowledge base. Which is limited.

Then it should be easy for you to point out the flaws.

She has determined that her understanding of the law is greater than the governments understanding of science.

The two are unrelated. The law is the law, regardless of the science.

Where do you suppose this decision would have taken us if she had gotten the case 2 years ago?

To a more lawful place where, if Congress wanted the CDC to have this authority, they would swiftly grant it in amending legislation. They can still do it now.

 

[mrjurrs]

Then it should be easy for you to point out the flaws.


The two are unrelated. The law is the law, regardless of the science.


To a more lawful place where, if Congress wanted the CDC to have this authority, they would swiftly grant it in amending legislation. They can still do it now.

It is a part of the Executive Branch. It is already constitutional for the Executive Branch to enforce its guidelines on those entities that accept federal funds (ie transportation systems).

 

[rahl]

So you don't care if our own federal government refuses to follow federal laws and restrict illegal aliens. Biden and his stupid DHS managers do not care about upholding the law by acquiring the necessary resources to stem the flood of aliens THAT BIDEN HIMSELF CAUSED!!!
Biden is failing in so many areas, this being one of them.

I'm curious, but does biden possess a time machine that he used to travel back decades in time, somehow create policy that has remained unchanged since then, which was what actually caused illegal immigration?