Coronavirus COVID-19

[SDHornet]

Bye bye Biden mask mandate!
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/18/florida ... lanes.html

Another L for Biden. Womp Womp.

[BDKJMU]

Bye bye Biden mask mandate!
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/18/florida ... lanes.html

Another L for Biden. Womp Womp.

And the left is losing their shit, attacking the judge, as if somehow a Trump appointed judge is illigitimate, and a Obama or Biden judge isn’t..

[GannonFan]

Another L for Biden. Womp Womp.

And the left is losing their shit, attacking the judge, as if somehow a Trump appointed judge is illigitimate, and a Obama or Biden judge isn’t..

Which is exactly what the right did during the Trump administration when Obama or Clinton judges struck down things Trump had inacted. The right (and I'm sure you) lost your s**t and attacked the legitimacy of those judges. Goose and gander I suppose.

[SeattleGriz]

And the left is losing their shit, attacking the judge, as if somehow a Trump appointed judge is illigitimate, and a Obama or Biden judge isn’t..

Which is exactly what the right did during the Trump administration when Obama or Clinton judges struck down things Trump had inacted. The right (and I'm sure you) lost your s**t and attacked the legitimacy of those judges. Goose and gander I suppose.

If the Right went after the judge's age or ABA rating, then yes, they did the same. If not, then I think it's generalized grumbling about how one judge can make a decision for the whole nation after they were "judge shopped" specifically.

[Winterborn]

I hope the Biden admin appeals the Judge's decision.

[JohnStOnge]

Another L for Biden. Womp Womp.

And the left is losing their shit, attacking the judge, as if somehow a Trump appointed judge is illigitimate, and a Obama or Biden judge isn’t..

Did Obama ever nominate anyone that the ABA said was "not qualified?" Did he ever nominate anyone who had not only never been a judge but had never tried a case as a lawyer either as lead or co-counsel (that's what the ABA said)?

i think she is wrong about the definition of sanitation, at least as the term is used in Public Health. Aside from that, I don't know why that one word was the deciding factor anyway. See the following quote from the law from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... sanitation;

Specifically, the law says that if the government is trying to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, it can "provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary."

The underlined portion appears to give the Secretary broad authority to use whatever measures they think necessary. No need to quibble about what "sanitation" means.

BTW i Googled my own question and Obama did not nominate anybody rated "not qualified." Clinton did a few. But i think you can see at https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_dur ... nistration that, in recent times, Republicans have tended to do it more often.

[kalm]

Which is exactly what the right did during the Trump administration when Obama or Clinton judges struck down things Trump had inacted. The right (and I'm sure you) lost your s**t and attacked the legitimacy of those judges. Goose and gander I suppose.

If the Right went after the judge's age or ABA rating, then yes, they did the same. If not, then I think it's generalized grumbling about how one judge can make a decision for the whole nation after they were "judge shopped" specifically.

It’s kind of specific grumbling and one judge in effect writing policy for the whole nation is problematic regardless of partisanship.

[kalm]

And the left is losing their shit, attacking the judge, as if somehow a Trump appointed judge is illigitimate, and a Obama or Biden judge isn’t..

Did Obama ever nominate anyone that the ABA said was "not qualified?" Did he ever nominate anyone who had not only never been a judge but had never tried a case as a lawyer either as lead or co-counsel (that's what the ABA said)?

i think she is wrong about the definition of sanitation, at least as the term is used in Public Health. Aside from that, I don't know why that one word was the deciding factor anyway. See the following quote from the law from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... sanitation;

Specifically, the law says that if the government is trying to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, it can "provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary."

The underlined portion appears to give the Secretary broad authority to use whatever measures they think necessary. No need to quibble about what "sanitation" means.

BTW i Googled my own question and Obama did not nominate anybody rated "not qualified." Clinton did a few. But i think you can see at https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_dur ... nistration that, in recent times, Republicans have tended to do it more often.

[JohnStOnge]

I hope the Biden admin appeals the Judge's decision.

i do too because it's a really bad precedent. I feel pretty good about their chances if they appeal even given the current composition of the Supreme Court. Taking the Authority to take necessary measures away from the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services when pandemics are going on is a bad, bad move.

And to me that language in the law about "...and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary..." kind of nukes any argument about whether requiring masks is "sanitation." It is. But there is no need to even argue about that when there is that broad catch all about "...other measures..." sitting there.

And BTW I do think part of the problem here is that Trump nominated someone to that position who had no business being nominated. You read about what her experience was at the time and that was just not a good idea.

[JohnStOnge]

If the Right went after the judge's age or ABA rating, then yes, they did the same. If not, then I think it's generalized grumbling about how one judge can make a decision for the whole nation after they were "judge shopped" specifically.

It’s kind of specific grumbling and one judge in effect writing policy for the whole nation is problematic regardless of partisanship.

It's not like Trump and his zombie army never complained about that sort of thing.

[AZGrizFan]

I hope the Biden admin appeals the Judge's decision.

i do too because it's a really bad precedent. I feel pretty good about their chances if they appeal even given the current composition of the Supreme Court. Taking the Authority to take necessary measures away from the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services when pandemics are going on is a bad, bad move.

And to me that language in the law about "...and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary..." kind of nukes any argument about whether requiring masks is "sanitation." It is. But there is no need to even argue about that when there is that broad catch all about "...other measures..." sitting there.

And BTW I do think part of the problem here is that Trump nominated someone to that position who had no business being nominated. You read about what her experience was at the time and that was just not a good idea.

There is no pandemic. Death rates and case counts are as low as they’ve EVER been, across the country, since the beginning of the “pandemic”. And trending even lower every single day. The pandemic is over. DHS just doesn’t like to see it’s power dwindle. Like any good government agency.

[JohnStOnge]

i think our system is such that, as a system, it can overcome problems with individual judges who are unqualified. And, look, this woman was not qualified to be appointed as a Federal judge. Just leave politics out of it. When she was nominated she was 33 years old. She was 8 years out of law school. She had no experience as a judge. She had no experience as a trial lawyer. The ABA, of course, rated her as "not qualified."

To me this is a poster child supporting Obama's decision not to nominate anyone who would get a "not qualified" rating from the ABA. Since this happened and I had the question I Googled a little and read about it. He did have some people he wanted to nominate but when he found that they'd get a "not qualified" rating he didn't do it. He was correct in adopting that process.

[JohnStOnge]

i do too because it's a really bad precedent. I feel pretty good about their chances if they appeal even given the current composition of the Supreme Court. Taking the Authority to take necessary measures away from the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services when pandemics are going on is a bad, bad move.

And to me that language in the law about "...and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary..." kind of nukes any argument about whether requiring masks is "sanitation." It is. But there is no need to even argue about that when there is that broad catch all about "...other measures..." sitting there.

And BTW I do think part of the problem here is that Trump nominated someone to that position who had no business being nominated. You read about what her experience was at the time and that was just not a good idea.

There is no pandemic. Death rates and case counts are as low as they’ve EVER been, across the country, since the beginning of the “pandemic”. And trending even lower every single day. The pandemic is over. DHS just doesn’t like to see it’s power dwindle. Like any good government agency.

The pandemic is not over. You can believe it is and say it is all you want. But it's not objective reality right now. Hopefully the end is close. But it hasn't happened yet.

If you take the past week of COVID-19 deaths in the United States and calculate a yearly rate from it you get 114,506 deaths. it is not historically normal for us to have that kind of death rate from any respiratory disease.

[SeattleGriz]

There is no pandemic. Death rates and case counts are as low as they’ve EVER been, across the country, since the beginning of the “pandemic”. And trending even lower every single day. The pandemic is over. DHS just doesn’t like to see it’s power dwindle. Like any good government agency.

The pandemic is not over. You can believe it is and say it is all you want. But it's not objective reality right now. Hopefully the end is close. But it hasn't happened yet.

If you take the past week of COVID-19 deaths in the United States and calculate a yearly rate from it you get 114,506 deaths. it is not historically normal for us to have that kind of death rate from any respiratory disease.

Yes. And it's been pointed out since Biden quite giving a shit. Death rate was sky high recently, but yet our experts didn't care anymore. Remember when they said they were taking public sentiment into consideration. Not very sciency.

[BDKJMU]

If the Right went after the judge's age or ABA rating, then yes, they did the same. If not, then I think it's generalized grumbling about how one judge can make a decision for the whole nation after they were "judge shopped" specifically.

It’s kind of specific grumbling and one judge in effect writing policy for the whole nation is problematic regardless of partisanship.

It happened numerous times when Trump was in office, overturning Trump admin exec orders or dept directives. And the left was fine with it then. Now many of those single district judge nationwide decisions were overturned at the circuit court level with either 3 judge panels, or the full circuit ct, with a couple by SCOTUS.

[AZGrizFan]

There is no pandemic. Death rates and case counts are as low as they’ve EVER been, across the country, since the beginning of the “pandemic”. And trending even lower every single day. The pandemic is over. DHS just doesn’t like to see it’s power dwindle. Like any good government agency.

The pandemic is not over. You can believe it is and say it is all you want. But it's not objective reality right now. Hopefully the end is close. But it hasn't happened yet.

If you take the past week of COVID-19 deaths in the United States and calculate a yearly rate from it you get 114,506 deaths. it is not historically normal for us to have that kind of death rate from any respiratory disease.

270 x 365 <> 114,506. The 7-day moving average is 270 deaths/day—-the lowest it’s been since the opening days of the pandemic, save for about an 8 day period middle of last year. At WORST that’s a little over 98,000 deaths. LOTS of things kill 98,000 Americans every year. In fact, at that rate COVID falls somewhere between Diabetes and Alzheimer’s. Two things we apparently worry very little about in this country.

It’s over. Objectively. Or by any other measure.

[SDHornet]

Fuck anyone that supported this shit.

[Winterborn]

I hope the Biden admin appeals the Judge's decision.

Biden dumps the problem in the CDC's lap and they will be appealing but not asking for a stay.

[SeattleGriz]

If the Right went after the judge's age or ABA rating, then yes, they did the same. If not, then I think it's generalized grumbling about how one judge can make a decision for the whole nation after they were "judge shopped" specifically.

It’s kind of specific grumbling and one judge in effect writing policy for the whole nation is problematic regardless of partisanship.

I called it generalized because both sides are doing it.

[Winterborn]

I hope the Biden admin appeals the Judge's decision.

i do too because it's a really bad precedent. I feel pretty good about their chances if they appeal even given the current composition of the Supreme Court. Taking the Authority to take necessary measures away from the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services when pandemics are going on is a bad, bad move.

And to me that language in the law about "...and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary..." kind of nukes any argument about whether requiring masks is "sanitation." It is. But there is no need to even argue about that when there is that broad catch all about "...other measures..." sitting there.

And BTW I do think part of the problem here is that Trump nominated someone to that position who had no business being nominated. You read about what her experience was at the time and that was just not a good idea.

We are past the "really bad precedent" stage when the Dems shopped through the Trump years for a judge to block his EO and I think the R's did it back in the Obama era as well. As far as I am concerned these are the "rules" and learn to live with it.

As for their chances, I fully disagree. I think the CDC is going to be defeated on a narrow ruling by the SC and they know it, which is why they didn't ask for a stay, as they are trying to limit the optics of such an appeal (more playing politics like they have been since the beginning).

This is good for the following reasons:

1) CDC is put back in its lane by denying it the power to set mandates in the future (they should advise the legislative/executive branches and the decisions are left up to those two branches) and sets a precedent

2) Biden's approval level takes another hit
2a) Democrat's get another albatross around their neck as a result

3) A win for personal choice. One can wear a mask or not, it is up to the individual (like it should have always been).


Personally it is a win for me either way. One way I do not have to wear a useless mask on a plane that is arguably more sanitary than anything people have been in all day, and the other Biden and the Dems get more unpopular as a result of being nannies.

[SeattleGriz]

I hope the Biden admin appeals the Judge's decision.

i do too because it's a really bad precedent. I feel pretty good about their chances if they appeal even given the current composition of the Supreme Court. Taking the Authority to take necessary measures away from the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services when pandemics are going on is a bad, bad move.

And to me that language in the law about "...and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary..." kind of nukes any argument about whether requiring masks is "sanitation." It is. But there is no need to even argue about that when there is that broad catch all about "...other measures..." sitting there.

And BTW I do think part of the problem here is that Trump nominated someone to that position who had no business being nominated. You read about what her experience was at the time and that was just not a good idea.

Of course you'd feel good with the Supreme court. We just heard Sotomayor say there were 100,000 seriously ill children, many on ventilators.

[BDKJMU]

I hope the Biden admin appeals the Judge's decision.

i do too because it's a really bad precedent. I feel pretty good about their chances if they appeal even given the current composition of the Supreme Court. Taking the Authority to take necessary measures away from the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services when pandemics are going on is a bad, bad move.

And to me that language in the law about "...and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary..." kind of nukes any argument about whether requiring masks is "sanitation." It is. But there is no need to even argue about that when there is that broad catch all about "...other measures..." sitting there.

And BTW I do think part of the problem here is that Trump nominated someone to that position who had no business being nominated. You read about what her experience was at the time and that was just not a good idea.

I hope they appeal, too.

Appealing carries a significant downside, said Andy Slavitt, a former Covid response team official for the Biden administration.

“While it’s highly tempting to appeal a very dubious ruling like this, there is a risk in doing so,” Slavitt said. “If they appeal and lose, the CDC could end up powerless to take some basic public health precautions in the event of a surge in cases in the fall or winter.” With a slew of Trump-appointed judges, he said, that concern had to weigh on them…..

….Appealing would be a “huge mistake” for Biden, said Peter Pitts, co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a former associate commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration.

The science behind Covid-19 right now is that BA.2 typically has mild symptoms, particularly for the vaccinated and boosted, as well as a very low death rate, he said. At this point, mandatory mask wearing serves only to divide the public while serving no health purpose, exacerbating “mask PTSD” for some and serving as a “virtue signal” for others, Pitts said….

…..An appeal would go to the federal appeals court in Atlanta, which is ideologically conservative and might side with Mizelle, Tobias said. Her ruling drew heavily on a Supreme Court decision striking down vaccine mandates, raising the specter of the top court upholding the decision as well.

The calculation was likely whether an appeal would probably end up at the high court, said Eric Feldman, professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “And the Supreme Court’s not likely to be all that sympathetic to the government’s position on this,” he said.

Feldman said a loss is “likely” and a win “isn’t all that useful on this.”….

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAWnznJ

[BDKJMU]

In a way this helps Biden with his base. They were likely going to end this thing anyway in May, which would piss off the mask covidian donk base. Now the Biden admin can say to their base hey, we were going to keep it, its not our fault it ended, it was a Trump judge..

[kalm]

In a way this helps Biden with his base. They were likely going to end this thing anyway in May, which would piss off the mask covidian donk base. Now the Biden admin can say to their base hey, we were going to keep it, its not our fault it ended, it was a Trump judge..

Yeah…his base may have voted for Trump otherwise.

[Winterborn]

In a way this helps Biden with his base. They were likely going to end this thing anyway in May, which would piss off the mask covidian donk base. Now the Biden admin can say to their base hey, we were going to keep it, its not our fault it ended, it was a Trump judge..

He does shore up some of his more vocal base. Problem is he will be dropping among Independents.

Over or under on him reaching 30% approval among that group of voters?