US Masking Requirements in Airports and on Planes Dead (or at least Moribund)

[tjintx]

In a dramatic series of events today, it appears that mask requirements are over in the US for public transportation hubs (train stations, airports, etc.) as well as on transportation itself (trains, planes).   A Federal judge this afternoon ruled the requirements as without the proper authority and illegal.  The Transportation Security Administration indicated that they will no longer require masking in public transportation nor in transportation hubs.  The major US airlines (at least the majors) have each announced that masks are now discretionary.

 

Also, in an even stranger move today, the CDC removed all countries from its COVID "do not travel" list.    

 

See: 

 

CDC mask mandate for travelers no longer in effect following judge's ruling, official says - CNNPolitics

CDC removes 89 countries from 'Do Not Travel' list (usatoday.com)

[ubonjoe]

Moved to the US and Canada sub forum of the home country forum.

[tjintx]

1 minute ago, ubonjoe said:

Moved to the US and Canada sub forum of the home country forum.

Thanks @ubonjoe, I wasn't aware of that sub forum (or forum for that matter)!

[thaibeachlovers]

Hope is on the horizon for sanity, at last. Sadly where I live the gov'ment can insist on anything they like, apparently without judges interfering, but we don't have a constitution.

[Chomper Higgot]

This ruling by a lower court judge the ABA assessed as ‘Not qualified’ will almost certainly be overturned at appeal or made void by a CDC mandate.

 

 

 

 

[pudd]

On 4/19/2022 at 6:16 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

This ruling by a lower court judge the ABA assessed as ‘Not qualified’ will almost certainly be overturned at appeal or made void by a CDC mandate.

 

 

 

 

The ABA is out of the picture, irrelevant, and meaningless now that you've mentioned.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/biden-keeps-aba-out-of-white-house-judicial-vetting-process/

 

The federal mask mandate was based on procedural grounds and the court never got to the merits. This case if tried on the merits, will fail as you will see.

Edited April 20, 2022 by pudd

[Jingthing]

The trump.judge made a political not medical decision.

 

Hypocrite right wingers aren't against activist judges if they do what they want.

 

The CDC might challenge this if they feel the evidence is strong enough.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, pudd said:

The ABA is out of the picture, irrelevant, and meaningless now that you've mentioned.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/biden-keeps-aba-out-of-white-house-judicial-vetting-process/

 

The federal mask mandate was based on procedural grounds and the court never got to the merits. This case if tried on the merits, will fail as you will see.

The ABA advised the Judge is not qualified and has an inadequate understanding of the law.

 

I look forward to the appeal.

[tjintx]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The trump.judge made a political not medical decision.

 

Hypocrite right wingers aren't against activist judges if they do what they want.

 

The CDC might challenge this if they feel the evidence is strong enough.

The judge made a legal decision.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, tjintx said:

The judge made a legal decision.

This is like saying the President made an executive decision. By definition, that's the case.

If reviewed at a higher level, it will be up to other courts to decide whether the grounds for her decision were valid or not.

[Jingthing]

42 minutes ago, tjintx said:

The judge made a legal decision.

Politically motivated. Fooling nobody.

[tjintx]

45 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Politically motivated. Fooling nobody.

....and the Biden administration will do the politically motivated choice of not appealing this.    Why?   The fact that he has opened the border to millions of people to enter, test-free, that masks are not required any where else by the Federal Government means that they have very little support for retaining the mandate in this only one place, transportation (and only that which receives Federal funding).   His approval ratings are so low, he will make some noise (already has) about this judge, his authority, etc. and let it go.   Also, he won't risk losing to higher courts.    Watch and see!

[Jingthing]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Its entirely relevant to this incredibly UNQUALIFIED judge. Picked by [Trump] AFTER he had lost. 

[Jingthing]

20 hours ago, tjintx said:

....and the Biden administration will do the politically motivated choice of not appealing this.    Why?   The fact that he has opened the border to millions of people to enter, test-free, that masks are not required any where else by the Federal Government means that they have very little support for retaining the mandate in this only one place, transportation (and only that which receives Federal funding).   His approval ratings are so low, he will make some noise (already has) about this judge, his authority, etc. and let it go.   Also, he won't risk losing to higher courts.    Watch and see!

Didn't need to wait long...

 

Biden administration to appeal ruling striking down transit mask mandate

 

"The Biden administration will appeal a federal judge’s decision that struck down the mask mandate on public transportation, officials announced Wednesday.

 

The Justice Department filed notice of its plans to appeal after U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of Florida on Monday concluded that the mandate exceeded the statutory authority of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The ruling blindsided the White House and sparked days of debate within the administration about how to proceed."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/04/20/cdc-seeks-mask-mandate/

 

 

[tjintx]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

BTW, the 11th Court of Appeals is composed of 9 judges appointed by Republicans and 8 by Democrats.

[mtls2005]

I have no dog in this hunt... 

 

Flight attendants are happy as they don't have to police mask-use, which led to conformations and violence previously.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te4spiKuGIU

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbd0PQyfTMc

 

[howlee101]

On 4/19/2022 at 1:16 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

made void by a CDC mandate.

The CDC cannot void a federal judge's decision.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

The CDC cannot void a federal judge's decision.

They are appealing. Announced today. If they lose that would be a horrific precedent for future more severe pandemics.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

The CDC cannot void a federal judge's decision.

The CDC can issue a new mandate.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, tjintx said:

....and the Biden administration will do the politically motivated choice of not appealing this.    Why?   The fact that he has opened the border to millions of people to enter, test-free, that masks are not required any where else by the Federal Government means that they have very little support for retaining the mandate in this only one place, transportation (and only that which receives Federal funding).   His approval ratings are so low, he will make some noise (already has) about this judge, his authority, etc. and let it go.   Also, he won't risk losing to higher courts.    Watch and see!

Biden’s administration has rolled out full vaccination to over 200 million Americans while vaccine reluctance is highest amongst people who (let me be charitable) are not going to vote Democrat.

 

So in a sense you are correct, there is a ‘political’ incentive not to enforce mask wearing and simply let nature run its course.

[howlee101]

Just now, Jingthing said:

They are appealing. Announced today. If they lose that would be a horrific precedent for future more severe pandemics.

NO, the CDC is not appealing.  They only asked the Justice Department to proceed with an appeal.  

[Jingthing]

38 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

NO, the CDC is not appealing.  They only asked the Justice Department to proceed with an appeal.  

Of course I meant the Justice Department. Duh.

The Justice Department is appealing.

[howlee101]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The CDC can issue a new mandate.

So you think the CDC will issue another mandate to wear masks on public transportation? You mean like the one that was just declared invalid by a federal judge?  Keep the audience abreast when that happens ????

[KhunLA]

34 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

So you think the CDC will issue another mandate to wear masks on public transportation? You mean like the one that was just declared invalid by a federal judge?  Keep the audience abreast when that happens ????

Even the CDC isn't that stupid.  Think the people have had enough of the BS.  With any luck, TH will catch up to the rest of the world.  And those forced to wear will get a break.

Edited April 21, 2022 by KhunLA

[Rimmer]

A baiting personal attack has been removed

[howlee101]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Posting facts.

Posting facts?

 

Your comments on this thread:

 

The trump.judge made a political not medical decision. (where are your facts/evidence of this other than your conjecture?)

 

Hypocrite right wingers aren't against activist judges if they do what they want.  (conjecture and/or emotionally retort)

 

Politically motivated. Fooling nobody (again, conjecture and/or emotionally retort)

 

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, howlee101 said:

Posting facts?

 

Your comments on this thread:

 

The trump.judge made a political not medical decision. (where are your facts/evidence of this other than your conjecture?)

 

Hypocrite right wingers aren't against activist judges if they do what they want.  (conjecture and/or emotionally retort)

 

Politically motivated. Fooling nobody (again, conjecture and/or emotionally retort)

 

 

 

The actual context of the facts comment was a reply to a post saying There you go again as follows:

 

Its entirely relevant to this incredibly UNQUALIFIED judge. Picked by [Trump] AFTER he had lost. 

 

This trump appointed judge is objectively unqualified.

American Bar Association evaluation.

FACT

 

She was picked because of her far right wing political idelogy, not qualifications 

FACT

 

She was picked by trump AFTER he had lost the election.

FACT

 

She was confirmed strictly on partisan party lines, the party controlled by trump then and still now.

FACT

 

[howlee101]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You have employed

 

The actual context of the facts comment was a reply to a post saying There you go again as follows:

 

Its entirely relevant to this incredibly UNQUALIFIED judge. Picked by [Trump] AFTER he had lost.  (At the bottom of this post, I have the main context of an article I found on wate . com (a Tennessee ABC news website).  But just to point out a few things, ON YOUR COMMENT:  The ABA's evaluation was "Not Qualified" base on "...the nominee presently does not meet the requisite minimum standard of experience...".  While your term "unqualified", by definition, is "not having requisite qualifications", is was not used by the ABA.  Another thing, Trump was still President up till the time Biden took the oath of office so you argument "AFTER he had lost" holds no merit)

 

This trump appointed judge is objectively unqualified.

American Bar Association evaluation.

FACT  (See my comment above.  Can you provide the ABA's statement where it says "objectively unqualified"?  I recall the left wing media pundits had a problem finding their buzz phrase in the recently passed Florida Parental RIghts Bill.

 

She was picked because of her far right wing political idelogy, not qualifications 

FACT  (While every President nominates liberal or conservative leaning nominees, just because you say it on a forum doesn't prove anything....so it's conjecture)

 

She was picked by trump AFTER he had lost the election.

FACT  (I'll give you this one....but he was still President.  He didn't stop being President until the day he left the office.)

 

She was confirmed strictly on partisan party lines, the party controlled by trump then and still now.

FACT  (As are most nominees appointed by the sitting President when their party controls the House/Senate....so another FACT I will cede).

 

Here's the article about the ABA...I've highlighted some relevant points:

 

The ABA’s evaluation of Mizelle noted that she did not have the minimum recommended “12 years’ experience in the practice of law,” having begun her professional career in 2012. Fewer than 12 years of experience does not necessarily disqualify a nominee, the ABA noted, but Mizelle had also “not tried a case, civil or criminal, as lead or co-counsel” prior to her nomination, they wrote.

 

In the eight years between passing the bar and her nomination, Mizelle had worked as a law clerk for several federal judges, a special-assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia, a counsel to the Office of the Associate Attorney General, a trial attorney for the Department of Justice, and for a year at a private practice in D.C., her biography states.

 

The ABA said these positions translated into roughly “5 years of experience in the trial courts.”

“In view of the importance of substantial courtroom and trial experience as it relates to professional competence to serve as a lifetime Article III judge, the Standing Committee accordingly has concluded — after a thorough peer review evaluation and careful deliberation — that the nominee presently does not meet the requisite minimum standard of experience necessary to perform the responsibilities required by the high office of a federal trial judge,” the letter read, in part.

 

The ABA wrote, however, that Mizelle’s resume was nonetheless impressive, and lauded her work ethic and “keen intellect.”

 

According to the ABA’s judicial ratings guidelines, nominees are not judged on ideology, political affiliation or personal philosophies, but rather their “integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.” The ABA also does not rate or review judges’ decisions after they have been appointed to a federal role.

 

[onthedarkside]

A series of off-topic, partisan political bickering posts and personal jibes to fellow forum members -- having nothing to do with the federal court mask wear ruling -- have been removed.

 

[frantick]

Any judge that can pen a 59 page opinion, in my opinion, is qualified. I'm fairly certain nobody on this forum read it all.