CDC Not Faring Well In Federal Court

[Daniel A]

On 7/20/2021 at 5:06 PM, chengkp75 said:

I really fail to understand how a ship that is free to sail wherever in the world it is allowed, has been seized by the US for not allowing re-entry into the country.  There is no seizure, there is just no granting of free pratique, and without this, the USCG will not issue a clearance to enter.

The point is that the ship is no longer able to sail freely because it has not been allowed to continue to sail where it could for the last 50 years or so...

 

According to Cornell University Law School: 

"Definition

A taking is when the government seizes private property for public use. 

Overview

A taking can come in two forms. The taking may be physical, which means that the government literally takes the property from its owner). Or the taking may be constructive (also called a regulatory taking), which means that the government restricts the owner's rights so much that the governmental action becomes the functional equivalent of a physical seizure."

 

This is why I have been referring to the CSO as an unlawful seizure.

[Daniel A]

On 7/20/2021 at 5:06 PM, chengkp75 said:

Well, the one topic you didn't respond to was the VSP.  I guess from your responses that you feel the VSP is overreach, and poor science?  Isn't it "restrictive CDC oversight"?  Do you think it is "good law" to not try to prevent a ship from having a noro or e coli outbreak, and then because there are active cases, the ship gets detained until it is remediated?  And, how do you remediate it, when the same people remain onboard, since the port agreements for health care will go away with the CSO?  Without those port agreements, the CDC will quarantine the vessel, as is allowed under the Public Health Act.  But, instead, we have a "restrictive oversight" that allows a ship, even one with many cases of infectious disease to enter the US, and disembark all the passengers without a quarantine.  Wow, I guess my understanding of preventative medicine is really out of whack. 

I suspect that your first sentence is hyperbole, but that said, you are conflating science with law.  There's plenty of very good science out there but it doesn't trump law, and that's the system we live under.  If 'science' had their way, we couldn't sit in the sun on a nice summer day, have a drink or two, play some roulette, spend too much time in front of our computers, have a nice steak or hamburger and possibly be able to tell our children about their ancestry.  This is where the law comes into play.  People and corporations have certain rights and the Constitution protects those rights from those who 'know better how we should live our lives.'  Thank God the CDC stepped in and told me I cannot sail on a cruise ship because I'm most likely too stupid to understand their guidance so it must become an unauthorized law.

 

What information do you have that the port agreements would have to go away if the CSO is suspended?  It would seem to me that it is to the advantage of the cruise line to have a place to disembark ill passengers.

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I suspect that your first sentence is hyperbole, but that said, you are conflating science with law

Not at all.  I don't see any difference between the CDC using the VSP to prevent infectious disease on ships to the CSO.  But, I guess that's just me.  One overreach is much like another to  me.

 

5 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

What information do you have that the port agreements would have to go away if the CSO is suspended?

Did I say they would have to go away?  Nope.  I said they would.  Why?  Because they are definitely not free, and the old way was free.

Edited July 23, 2021 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Thank God the CDC stepped in and told me I cannot sail on a cruise ship because I'm most likely too stupid to understand their guidance so it must become an unauthorized law.

It's still up for debate whether the regulation (actually an emergency order) is unauthorized or not.  And, you must think its terrible that the VSP, which must be unauthorized as well, tells people who are most likely too stupid to follow hygiene, how to do just about everything on the ship, including how it is built, in order to stay healthy.  You still have not stated your views on the VSP, it seems you like to pick and choose which regulations are overreach, and which are not, when they both do the same thing.

 

Frankly, after the attitude of many here on CC towards the CDC, I wish they would find the VSP to be "overreach" as well, or the CDC just drops it, and we go back to quarantine inspections every cruise.  Or, would that be "illegal seizure" as well, since there is no known disease, its just a precaution.  Then we'd have to fall back on a certification by the Master that there is no disease, and we know how the industry (the maritime industry as a whole, not just the cruise lines) fares with self-regulation.

 

I'm done.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

Don’t be done, please.  It’s refreshing to see common sense still exists.

[ontheweb]

12 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Has anybody heard boo from the two judges who stayed the injunction?  They said opinions to follow.  If they had a literally last minute opinion last Saturday night, they should have been able to articulate their decision in a day or two.  It is looking like a decision in search of a rationale.

Has anyone heard from the judge who dissented?

[TenneSea]

duplicate

Edited July 23, 2021 by TenneSea

[TenneSea]

Unfortunately, everything is political now ...E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G  (including the CDC)

[TenneSea]

duplicated- sorry

Edited July 23, 2021 by TenneSea

[voljeep]

11th Circuit Jumps Ship on Its Own Order After Florida Urged SCOTUS to Lift CDC’s Cruise Restrictions

Elura Nanos  22 mins ago

 

 

 

 

Like1 Comment|

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit just changed its mind and sided with Florida in ongoing drama over cruise ships sailing out of ports in the Sunshine State. The about-face at the circuit court level was almost certainly brought on by Florida’s recent petition to the United States Supreme Court, asking the justices to rule against the CDC’s ongoing “no-sail order.”

 

[beg3yrs]

Wow, just wow!

[richstowe]

Does it matter if the CDC is Not Faring Well In Federal Court ? I will cancel my booked cruise if it doesn't seem safe (low levels of vaccination) or on the other hand, the safety protocols are too onerous . I generally support the CDC but at this point their role has diminished . 

Edited July 24, 2021 by richstowe

[brisalta]

2 hours ago, voljeep said:

11th Circuit Jumps Ship on Its Own Order After Florida Urged SCOTUS to Lift CDC’s Cruise Restrictions

Elura Nanos  22 mins ago

 

 

 

 

Like1 Comment|

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit just changed its mind and sided with Florida in ongoing drama over cruise ships sailing out of ports in the Sunshine State. The about-face at the circuit court level was almost certainly brought on by Florida’s recent petition to the United States Supreme Court, asking the justices to rule against the CDC’s ongoing “no-sail order.”

 

 

It is interesting that the decision cited Nken v. Holder https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/418/

[PrincessLuver]

We will not sail on any ship not requiring proof of vaccination.....why get on a ship and take a chance on getting the Delta Variant and play infection roulette.....it is going to be a disaster if these political games do not stop.... they only thing that is true is that the US is losing the war against the Corona virus.....

[Wishing on a star]

Yes, it appears that the Appeals ruling has changed!!!

And, I haven't followed details, but it seems that FL is already submitting "whatever legal documents" to the Supreme Court?

 

And, remember, that at least one cruise line has initiated a lawsuit against FL. (the Atty General???) So if FL does win this suit.  (based on legal matters, not necessarily that COVID is still a threat). Then I would assume that other cruise lines might follow suit.

 

This ain't anywhere near over.

 

Wow...  What a mess.

Yes, we know that COVID is having a major resurgance.  Especially due to Delta, and especially in some areas.  So, we do know that COVID is still a valid concern. 

I don't think we know the whole story about just how effective the vaccine(s) are against the newer variants, whether children are at risk, etc...

Remember everyone, personal opinions are NOT to be posted here on CC.

I know some would like to believe that their opinions have great value and will be listened to by others.  But that probably isn't the case.

 

Edited July 24, 2021 by Wishing on a star

[loge23]

Of course, all of this legal maneuvering will be moot if even one more COVID variant worse than Delta arises, and the chances of that occurring are high. 

We're teetering on the brink of yet another shutdown once again if the current situation continues unabated. 

The irony is that if the cruise lines can reject unvaccinated passengers, the ships may well be the safest place to be! 

[beg3yrs]

33 minutes ago, Wishing on a star said:

Yes, it appears that the Appeals ruling has changed!!!

And, I haven't followed details, but it seems that FL is already submitting "whatever legal documents" to the Supreme Court?

 

And, remember, that at least one cruise line has initiated a lawsuit against FL. (the Atty General???) So if FL does win this suit.  (based on legal matters, not necessarily that COVID is still a threat). Then I would assume that other cruise lines might follow suit.

 

....

 

Not going to discuss the items I didn't quote because that would be against CC's COVID-19 discussion policy.

 

Yes, the ruling of the appeals court changed in favor of the State of Florida. Not having a legal background, the language sounds to me like it was on some kind of technicality. Not sure though, hopefully someone else with expertise will chime in.

 

The State of Florida had already submitted an emergency appeal to SCOTUS when the appeals court reversed itself.

 

The suit filed by NCL is against the Florida state-equivalent of the Surgeon General regarding the no vaccination passport laws in Florida. It's against the person in that office as that's where the authority resides to enforce or not enforce the law in question. This is only marginally related, if at all, to the CDC lawsuits.

[Syracusefan44]

My wife and I have decided that based upon the DeSantis vaccine passport ban it is simply not worth boarding a cruise ship out of Florida and today we decided to cancel our 11/6/21 cruise on the Crown Princess.
 

We will spend our vacation money on Princess Cruises that depart ports in Seattle, LA, and NYC where we will gladly show our vaccine cards.
 

The next time we have any plans to depart Port Everglades is May 2023 on a transatlantic cruise to Iceland.

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2021 by Syracusefan44

[richstowe]

3 hours ago, Wishing on a star said:

I know some would like to believe that their opinions have great value and will be listened to by others.  But that probably isn't the case

I believe your opinion has great value. 🙃

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, Syracusefan44 said:

My wife and I have decided that based upon the DeSantis vaccine passport ban it is simply not worth boarding a cruise ship out of Florida and today we decided to cancel our 11/6/21 cruise on the Crown Princess.
 

We will spend our vacation money on Princess Cruises that depart ports in Seattle, LA, and NYC where we will gladly show our vaccine cards.
 

The next time we have any plans to depart Port Everglades is May 2023 on a transatlantic cruise to Iceland.

 

 

 

But, DeSantis supposedly filed the lawsuit to preserve cruising out of Florida!🤦‍♂️

[Daniel A]

4 hours ago, Syracusefan44 said:

My wife and I have decided that based upon the DeSantis vaccine passport ban it is simply not worth boarding a cruise ship out of Florida and today we decided to cancel our 11/6/21 cruise on the Crown Princess.

You do understand that the Florida law which prohibits vaccine verification has nothing to do with the Florida lawsuit against the CDC?  The other case is NCL versus Florida in a different court altogether.

 

I also hope that Florida negotiates a carveout for cruise ships but it will need to come from the NCL lawsuit, not the CDC one.

[Wishing on a star]

Syracusefan.  I am just saying that right now we do not know if the FL ban on requiring vaccination, or requiring any documentation of vaccination will hold up.  We don't know how this plays out.

 

If the CDC and their CSO requirements do not hold up in court, if the CDC loses, than cruise lines, like Princess, could file suits to get an injunction against the FL restriction, while the legality and constitutionality of cruise ships/ private companies, requiring personal medical information is decided.  And, of course, could go all the way the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

I fully understand anyone cancelling bookings, or making or not-making bookings based on the ongoing COVID situation.   Just saying that I wouldn't want to make a decision based on a 'BAN' that might or not happen.   Nobody knows what will happen.   But, if one wants to cruise, you have until Final Payment Date to see what the situation is at that time. 

[chengkp75]

47 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I also hope that Florida negotiates a carveout for cruise ships but it will need to come from the NCL lawsuit, not the CDC one.

How's that square with your idea of "equal protection under the law"?