Activist federal judge who was found “Not Qualified” by the American Bar Association has thrown a monkey-wrench into the CDC’s efforts to control the interstate spread of Covid. This would be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Elections Have Consequences
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The judge ruled that CDC had no statutory authority to issue the mandate. It is hard to see how judicial activism or even public health risks are even a factor here.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mask-mandate-goes-down-federal-judge-kathryn-kimball-mizelle-cdc-biden-administration-11650318701?st=1gtrcx7hxbzcpl8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
“It is hard to see how judicial activism or even public health risks are even a factor here.”
Actually it is not hard at all.
Activist Judge : Congress gave the government broad authority for measures it deems necessary to stop the spread of infectious disease. It has had and exercised that authority for centuries. That authority was renewed in 1948. This single judge has nullifed the law for clearly bogus partisan reasons. Or, she is dumber than a bag of rocks. Either way, the ABA got it right.
Public health risks : I am not going to waste time stating the obvious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Congress gave the government broad authority for measures it deems necessary to stop the spread of infectious disease.”
But apparently not specific authority, according to the judge. Instead of making a broad philosophical point, tell us where the judge is wrong.
LikeLike
Where is her opinion in error?
Click to access maskmandateruling.pdf
LikeLike
“Where is her opinion in error?”
As the article explains, the CDC’s authority under the law (Public Health Services Act – 1948) gives the government wide discretion to take measures to stop the spread of infectious disease across state lines. From the article. . .
“Mizelle claimed in her ruling that the transportation mask mandate exceeded the CDC’s powers, but nothing could be further from the truth. The CDC is acting at the very core of its mandate when working to prevent the interstate spread of a dangerous infectious disease at, to take one important example, the nation’s airports. It’s actually hard to imagine a clearer case of a legitimate federal public-health power.”
But go ahead. Pretend not to understand. Activist Trump judges spitting in the face of the government, the public, and the law is what you signed up for.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again, where is the error in her opinion, not an article about it.
LikeLike
“Again, where is the error in her opinion, not an article about it.”
That is a dodge if I ever saw one. And with you, I have seen many. But to answer your question, I share the opinion expressed in the article for the same reason expressed in the article. The legal authority to stop the interstate spread of disease is written in very broad language and grants wide authority.
Here is that language. . .
“[The government] is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” The statute goes on to list examples of actions that might be taken, and the judge seizes on the fact that masking is not specifically included to make her ruling. But to do so she ignores yet another broad phrase – “and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary” – at the end of that list.
Legal authorities do not get much broader than that and for obvious reasons – infectious disease does not wait for legislative decisions. There is no objective logic in concluding that the air travel mask mandate in these circumstances is NOT covered by this broad authority. This decision is pure partisan hackery or grotesque incompetence. Take your pick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The legal authority to stop the interstate spread of disease is written in very broad language and grants wide authority.”
No, it isn’t. This point is addressed in the judge’s ruling both as a matter of statutory interpretation and legal precedent (see pages 25-26),
LikeLike
“No, it isn’t. ”
Yes, it is. Is English not your mother tongue?
You are begging the question by relying on this judge’s twisted logic. Just read the damn law.
If the wearing of masks on planes was a matter of “vast economic or political significance” then there might be a point that Congress should decide. But that is not the case. Economically the mandate is trivial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I used my considerable proficiency in English to read the ruling, even to give you page numbers for that part that refutes your arguments. I suspect that no matter how much I read the law itself I will never arrive at an interpretation that aligns with your opinion.
It is YOU who begs the question by second guessing a judge, whose legal knowledge is probably superior to your own. But tell us where she erred, not that you know better.
LikeLike
No amount of argle bargle changes the fact that the law gives the government the authority to apply the measures it deems necessary to stop the spread of infectious disease across state lines. It would be impossible to write the law any more clearly than the phrases used.
You people constantly say . . .”Think for yourself and do not rely on experts” but there you go – relying on the “expertise” of a grossly unqualified jurist. Why? Because her argle bargle supports your absurd anti-government, anti-public health ideology.
We will see what happens on appeal if the government decides to appeal this mostly moot ruling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “No amount of argle bargle changes the fact that the law gives the government the authority to apply the measures it deems necessary to stop the spread of infectious disease across state lines.”
Repeating your misunderstanding won’t make it true. As I said, the judge addresses this issue directly in her ruling (pages 25-26).
LikeLike
Here is a more lawyerly explanation of how patently incompetent this ruling is . . .
https://abovethelaw.com/2022/04/mask-mandate-struck-down-because-sanitation-doesnt-mean-keeping-things-clean-for-reasons/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doesn’t strike me as lawyerly at all.
But the Biden administration is welcome to roll the dice and appeal, but that brings the risk of much wider application.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Dr. Tabor. I don’t know why he even referenced the article. Maybe he needs another donut. Either way, let them continue on their ways.
LikeLike
Whatever your “expert” opinion, it demolishes the “logic” that this judge employed to hamstring the government’s ability to fight infectious disease.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Doesn’t strike me as lawyerly at all.”
Noting that disagrees with your interpretation ever does. But that is not the point.
The point is this UNQUALIFIED (per the ABA, not sure about The Federalist Society) judge used her own personal opinion and not the text of the statute to make her decision. She is NOT scientifically qualified to determine what sanitation measures are necessary. She misinterpreted the meaning of the law, stuck her own, Trump-y opinion in and made a bad decision.
I agree that challenging the decision to SCOTUS could lead to bad outcomes in the future, but her “opinion” is flawed, biased, and IMO, wrongheaded.
LikeLiked by 1 person