Just When We are all Excited About Alaska Cruises Starting Up, then it could all vanish

[atexsix]

6 hours ago, Christine Frances said:

shouldn’t the CDC be non political?   Isn’t their mandate to protect the US citizens?    Not to put business first?

Ideally yes.  But....it all depends on whose writing the checks with government funded agencies.  I can remember during the AIDS crisis they were given next to nothing in funds until the mid-80s.  

[harkinmr]

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I think that the CDC may have backed out of mediation in order to make the statement that if Florida wins, that ends the Alaska season because the Alaska restoration law requires a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  This is clearly a maneuver to drive a wedge between the two states suing the CDC.  Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law.  If Florida wins, it would remove the ability to mandate such a certificate but not the ability to issue voluntary ones.  It's legal theater on the part of the CDC.  They are out of control.

"Backed out of the mediation"?  Where did you get that from?  The mediation ended because there was no resolution.  Likely because Florida would not back away from its demand that the CSO be lifted.  There is no such thing as a "voluntary" sailing certificate.  There is an application process and an approval process pursuant to the CSO.  Any approval carries certain statutory compliance measures.   If there is no CSO, no application or compliance is required.  In order to change the certificate for conditional sailing in the Alaska legislation, the legislation would need to be amended.  You are placing too much faith in Florida "winning". Given that the lawsuit was filed almost a month ago and the court has scheduled a hearing on what is effectively a motion to dismiss for late next week, it's highly unlikely that an injunction will be granted.  

[jakers]

Quite frankly the CDC needs to spend whatever leverage that they have left with making sure that any person that can get vaccinated gets vaccinated. Then they need to take their heels off our necks and go back to their cubicles where they belong. Since when does an unelected and unrepresentative body get to control our lives. 

[CruiserBruce]

10 minutes ago, jakers said:

Quite frankly the CDC needs to spend whatever leverage that they have left with making sure that any person that can get vaccinated gets vaccinated. Then they need to take their heels off our necks and go back to their cubicles where they belong. Since when does an unelected and unrepresentative body get to control our lives. 

You realize your local health department can shut down any number of businesses? As can your local fire department.  Your police department can arrest you. None of them are elected. Neither is your highway patrol or the FBI.

[cruzn single]

I am so confused with all of this.  I am NOT a lawyer.  I am fully vaccinated and have my vaccination card.  I simply want to board a cruise ship!

[Daniel A]

10 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Don't personify the CDC. Suggesting it would act they way you would in similar circumstances is nonsensical.

Well, as long as you wanted to drag this down to a personal attack, I won't have the audacity to tell you how you can relate to Ottawa as long as you don't continue with the audacity to tell me how I am allowed to relate to my government in Washington and Atlanta.

[ontheweb]

13 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I think that the CDC may have backed out of mediation in order to make the statement that if Florida wins, that ends the Alaska season because the Alaska restoration law requires a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  This is clearly a maneuver to drive a wedge between the two states suing the CDC.  Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law.  If Florida wins, it would remove the ability to mandate such a certificate but not the ability to issue voluntary ones.  It's legal theater on the part of the CDC.  They are out of control.

A mediator tries to get both parties to come to an agreement. In this case they could not come to an agreement. How can you translate that to "the CDC may have backed out of mediation"? Do you have a transcript of what went on in the mediation sessions? Do you know if the state of Florida made any effort to reach a settlement that both parties could agree to while the CDC was unreasonable in its position? 

[Daniel A]

5 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

A mediator tries to get both parties to come to an agreement. In this case they could not come to an agreement. How can you translate that to "the CDC may have backed out of mediation"? Do you have a transcript of what went on in the mediation sessions? Do you know if the state of Florida made any effort to reach a settlement that both parties could agree to while the CDC was unreasonable in its position? 

I didn't state that as a fact.  When I said "the CDC may have backed out of mediation" means just that.  They may have backed out in order to come out with their threat against Alaska.  I'm indicating a possibility, not a certainty.  I hope this clears it up for you.

[ontheweb]

2 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I didn't state that as a fact.  When I said "the CDC may have backed out of mediation" means just that.  They may have backed out in order to come out with their threat against Alaska.  I'm indicating a possibility, not a certainty.  I hope this clears it up for you.

So you make a supposition, and use it to make an accusation against the CDC.

[harkinmr]

9 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

You realize your local health department can shut down any number of businesses? As can your local fire department.  Your police department can arrest you. None of them are elected. Neither is your highway patrol or the FBI.

No, they don’t realize these things. It is a knee-jerk reaction whenever any agency exercises its authority in a way contrary to their desires. Folks need to do some research regarding HHS and CDC statutory authority, including the CDC’s long standing authority on shipping of any kind. The jackboot on the neck of free Americans is a common theme.  The funniest thing I’ve seen is the contention that the federal government needs to stay out of the business of cruising, while at the same time adamantly supporting the State of Florida doing just that in imposing its vaccine ban on the industry.  What’s the saying?  “Can’t have it both ways”. 

[harkinmr]

27 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

A mediator tries to get both parties to come to an agreement. In this case they could not come to an agreement. How can you translate that to "the CDC may have backed out of mediation"? Do you have a transcript of what went on in the mediation sessions? Do you know if the state of Florida made any effort to reach a settlement that both parties could agree to while the CDC was unreasonable in its position? 

This case was not conducive to mediation to begin with. I believe that Judge Merryday was kicking the can down the road a bit and was hoping that Florida would find some way to temper its demands so that he would not have to immediately deny their request for an injunction. I don’t think there was any wiggle room on this. Florida stuck in the mud with its contention that the CSO be dropped and the CDC saying basically “no”. Meanwhile, progress is being made and cruising is restarting. This will give the judge more support in denying the injunction in a week or two and the case will languish in trial or be dismissed as moot. We will see.  

Edited June 5, 2021 by harkinmr

[harkinmr]

13 hours ago, nocl said:

I never considered mediation to have any change. You are talking about Governmental agency authority at the border, vs a state. No way the CDC or for that matter the Justice Department going to mediate that away. The only mediation possible would be is minor changes to the CSO, not the entire question of if the CDC had the authority which is the basis of the Florida case.

 

Actually if Florida were to win, since the entire basis of the Florida case is that the CDC does not have the authority to regulate the cruise industry, any new CSO would be equally invalid.

 

The law was written to require compliance with the CSO to get some that objected the first time the law was attempted, including the Senator from Washington to drop the objection. Which they did after the CDC came out with the 95/98% vaccination alternative.

 

Basically if Florida were to win, the law would have to be rewritten and passed again. Which it might not, without the cruise lines having to comply with CDC oversite.

 

Of course by using the term Florida winning it would mean at least at the court of appeals level. Which it certainly go to.

This. 

[Daniel A]

48 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

So you make a supposition, and use it to make an accusation against the CDC.

I don't know why you want to turn this into a strawman discussion.  The whole point is that "Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law."  Government agencies routinely issue certifications and accreditations even though they aren't mandatory for entities to conduct their operations.  These decisions to offer these certifications/accreditations are administrative decisions and not always required by statute.  Instead, the CDC is making it sound like they won't be permitted to issue voluntary certificates which is not the case.

 

Whatever the actual reason for the mediation failure, it is irrelevant to the above concept.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Daniel A

[Aardvaark]

On 6/3/2021 at 1:13 AM, leerathje said:

I sent a letter to Governor Desantis letting him know how, as a tourist, I feel about his executive order.

 

L.

 

What Executive Order?  The anti-discrimination-by-vaccination status is state law.

[CruiserBruce]

1 minute ago, Aardvaark said:

What Executive Order?  The anti-discrimination-by-vaccination status is state law.

No, its not, until July 1. The law has been passed, but not yet enacted. Florida is currently operating under an Executive Order.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Aardvaark said:

What Executive Order?  The anti-discrimination-by-vaccination status is state law.

Well, the law doesn't take effect until 1 July, so at the moment the governor's EO is in effect.

[chengkp75]

13 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Government agencies routinely issue certifications and accreditations even though they aren't mandatory for entities to conduct their operations.

Do any of these "certificates and accreditations" exist without underlying regulations or statutes?  Because that is what would happen if the CSO is invalidated.  What would the basis be for issuing a "voluntary" certificate?  And, what would the enforcement mechanism be, since the ATRA requires that the ship continue to operate under the requirements of the certificate, in order to be eligible for the waiver.

[broberts]

36 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

... The whole point is that "Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law."  ...

 

Unless of course the CDC believes it would be unsafe to do so.

[Daniel A]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Do any of these "certificates and accreditations" exist without underlying regulations or statutes?  Because that is what would happen if the CSO is invalidated.  What would the basis be for issuing a "voluntary" certificate?  And, what would the enforcement mechanism be, since the ATRA requires that the ship continue to operate under the requirements of the certificate, in order to be eligible for the waiver.

Yes, they do.  I have been involved in having both NGO and GO meeting voluntary accreditation and certifications.  The agency promulgates a standard and advises they will issue a certification for voluntary compliance with that standard.  One example of a voluntary federal program is the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians.  That program was instituted at the mere 'suggestion' of Lyndon Johnson.  EMT's are not required to participate in National Registry in order to conduct emergency medical care in the US.  

 

The CDC would be able to promulgate a set of standards for how a ship can get a certificate conditioned on the ship maintaining voluntary compliance with the standard (such as requiring the 95/98 standard and/or increased sanitation standards etc.) They would not need to have the entire CSO in order to accomplish this - if they had the will to do it.  As long as the ship had that certification, it would meet the statutory requirement in the ATRA.

[Daniel A]

45 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

"Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law." 

 

6 minutes ago, broberts said:

Unless of course the CDC believes it would be unsafe to do so.

That would be fine if they could document the danger of doing so.  The fact of the matter is that the CDC was already willing to issue the conditional Sailing Certificates.  What would make it unsafe just because the CSO got altered or enjoined by a  court?

[broberts]

16 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

 

That would be fine if they could document the danger of doing so.  The fact of the matter is that the CDC was already willing to issue the conditional Sailing Certificates.  What would make it unsafe just because the CSO got altered or enjoined by a  court?

 

Not sure what you mean by "document the danger". If by that you mean if the CDC explains it's action to the satisfaction of the non professional/technical audience, then I would disagree.

 

Why are you asking how a court altering or enjoining the CSO would make cruising unsafe? I never claimed it would and I have no idea what a judge may rule or the effects thereof.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I don't know why you want to turn this into a strawman discussion.  The whole point is that "Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law."  Government agencies routinely issue certifications and accreditations even though they aren't mandatory for entities to conduct their operations.  These decisions to offer these certifications/accreditations are administrative decisions and not always required by statute.  Instead, the CDC is making it sound like they won't be permitted to issue voluntary certificates which is not the case.

 

Whatever the actual reason for the mediation failure, it is irrelevant to the above concept.

Nothing at all is stopping Florida from making the return of cruises out of Florida easier to accomplish than dropping their you can't ask for proof of vaccination mandate applying to cruise ships. And since it is almost certainly a federal issue than a state issue, it should not have to wait for a court to decide.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

The agency promulgates a standard and advises they will issue a certification for voluntary compliance with that standard.

This is what I asked.  There is an underlying standard that defines the certificate.

 

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

The CDC would be able to promulgate a set of standards for how a ship can get a certificate conditioned on the ship maintaining voluntary compliance with the standard (such as requiring the 95/98 standard and/or increased sanitation standards etc.) They would not need to have the entire CSO in order to accomplish this - if they had the will to do it.  As long as the ship had that certification, it would meet the statutory requirement in the ATRA.

So, until the lawsuit is determined, the CDC has to maintain the CSO for ships everywhere but Alaska, but give the Alaska cruises a pass on compliance with a voluntary certificate.  

[harkinmr]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This is what I asked.  There is an underlying standard that defines the certificate.

 

So, until the lawsuit is determined, the CDC has to maintain the CSO for ships everywhere but Alaska, but give the Alaska cruises a pass on compliance with a voluntary certificate.  

The concept of "voluntary compliance" is just laughable.  I don't think you are going to get anywhere on this one.  

[Daniel A]

54 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This is what I asked.  There is an underlying standard that defines the certificate.

 

So, until the lawsuit is determined, the CDC has to maintain the CSO for ships everywhere but Alaska, but give the Alaska cruises a pass on compliance with a voluntary certificate.  

Yes, the agency promulgating the standard can do so within the agency's statutory limits.  This means since they promulgated the CSO, they are just as capable of promulgating a voluntary certificate as well.  A standard is not necessarily a "regulation or a statute" which is what you asked.

 

As long as the CSO is legal and in existence, there is no barrier to the CDC issuing the Conditional Sailing Certificates.  The CDC is trying to claim that if the CSO isn't legal, then they would have no ability to come up with an alternate Conditional Sailing Certificate.  I do not believe that to be the case.

 

In general, government operations should always seek voluntary cooperation from the governed.  There is no need to hammer the governed into compliance if they are willingly doing what the government wants in the first place.