Posted on 04/22/2022 12:55:58 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON — Does the Biden administration really want and intend to fight for a higher court reversal of the ruling this week striking down its mask mandate on airplanes, trains and other public transportation — as its high-profile appeal of the case seemed to suggest?
Legal specialists raised another possibility Thursday: The administration may instead be buying time and thinking about trying to erase the ruling — a move that would allow it to protect the powers of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to respond to a future crisis — but without reviving a mask mandate.
The tell, several outside specialists said, was that the Biden administration was letting days pass without seeking a stay of the ruling, the step that could most immediately resurrect the mask requirement.
“Basically, it is giving up on the mask mandate,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, a Georgetown University professor of global health law who advised the White House on the case. “The administration’s goal is a legal principle, which is to ensure that the CDC has strong public health powers to fight COVID and to fight future pandemics. And it appears much less important to them to quickly reinstate the mask mandate.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Great point. A routine legal tactic is to ask for a stay of an order pending appeal. The decision is discretionary with the trial court initially. The fact they have even asked for a stay is telling.
Protect the power of the CDC.
Protect the power of the DC establishment.
Hope so. Otherwise, it will be like trying to put all of the toothpaste back into a now empty tube.
I thought the same thing from the day the ruling was announced. This lets Biden off the hook. Now he can drop the inane mask mandate without political fallout from the lefty mask lovers. However, the ruling correctly states that the CDC doesn’t have the authority to impose mandates, so I don’t understand that seeming strategy. The CDC has no Constitutional authority to impose anything. That no one challenged this long ago is a mystery to me.
Which can mean only one of two things:
1) Either the Biden Administration doesn't care about saving lives, or
B) Mask mandates don't save lives.
Which is it, Brandon?
With a mask that is NOT effective.
I too was puzzled that the CDC - the very agency which was declared to have no authority - came out to appeal.
Unless Fauci is a loose cannon...which is always possible, since nobody seems to be in charge...and panicked. Remember, he said the other day that it wasn’t about the disease, but about maintaining the authority of the CDC (which the judge said it didn’t have).
“the ruling correctly states that the CDC doesn’t have the authority to impose mandates”
Unfortunately, you are wrong. Congress delegated statutory authority to CDC under the 1944 Public Health Services Act, 42 U.S.C. § 246(a). The judge ruled that the CDC exceeded their delegated authority by using “sanitation” as the justification and 2) the CDC did not allow the required public notice and comment period on the proposed rule. The CDC claimed that the notice and comment period would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” which the court found to be untrue. CDC argued further that a public comment period would have been useless because the agency’s mind was already made up. 3) Judge Mizelle found that the Mask Mandate was arbitrary and capricious because the CDC articulated no rationale for the agency’s rejection, or failure to consider, alternative measures, or for its system of exceptions.
But nowhere did Judge Mizelle find the CDC does not have the authority to impose such mandates. CDC just blew it on the above three points. Mizelle remanded it to CDC to fix these problems; she did not summarily find the CDC does not have such authority.
They’re scared. After the CDC made its announcement that it wanted to keep the mandates, a couple of cities (such as Philly) that had dropped it after the ruling went back to it. But as of today, Philly reversed itself and went back to dropping the mandate - because public resistance to its reinstatement was too great.
So, folks, if they try it again...resist!
“a move that would allow it to protect the powers of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to respond to a future crisis — but without reviving a mask mandate.”
This is exactly what they’re doing. They want to preserve the powers of the CDC so they can initiate another lockdown come fall, just in time for the midterms.
Okay, I stand corrected. But the ruling is still correct. Like just about everything with Covid, every law, procedure, standard, and process was evicted on behalf of the power of the leftist state. The threat of public safety was typically the smokescreen from the hellfire of white hot fear they stoked. After several months of Covid, and certainly in the last year, there was a substantial amount of information and understanding of Covid that obviated the need for any mask or any other ridiculous mandate that was, heretofore, proven ineffective.
Finally, I think a Republican Congress and President should look to repeal, or significantly alter that section of the CDC’s rule. I’m fairly certain a lot of red state leaders will look to reign in their runaway health nazis who also used Covid mandates to intentionally wreck an economy and pursue “emergency” voting rules.
The US appealed? How about the Biden Administration appealed?
It is safety theater. If they work, great; wear one to protect yourself and STFU. If they don’t work, STFU anyway.
If they really wanted it reinstated, they’d have judge-shopped for another Federal Judge to issue a contradictory ruling. This gives them some cover with their lunatic base while trying to ratchet down the anger of their remaining potential voters.
” 3) Judge Mizelle found that the Mask Mandate was arbitrary and capricious b”
Judge Mizelle found that the Mask Mandate was illegal because it exceeded the granted authority given by congress.
The CDC did not blow it, they acted unlawfully as they did with their other mandates which were struck down by the courts.
I agree with TexasGator.
https://healthfreedomdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/DE-53-ORDER-GRANTING-SJ-TO-PLAINTIFFS.pdf (page 58...in part)
IV. CONCLUSION
"It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of [COVID-19]." Ala. Ass'n of Realtors, 141 S.Ct. at 2490. In pursuit of that end, the CDC issued the Mask Mandate. But the Mandate exceeded the CDC's statutory authority, improperly invoked the good clause exception to notice and comment rulemaking, and failed to adequately explain its decisions. Because "our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends," id., the Court declares unlawful and vacates the Mask Mandate.
Philly reversed itself and went back to dropping the mandate - because public resistance to its reinstatement was too great.
_______________________
And their mayor was photographed maskless in FL, something Desantis capitalized on.
The best part of all of this hygiene theater is the exposure of the control agenda. They keep on articulating the quiet part in public, on camera and with audio.
“The fact they have even asked for a stay is telling.”
There is a problem with this line of thought. As someone here posted yesterday, the problem is, “The cat is not only out of the bag, it has also run away.”
The mask mandate was extremely unpopular and increasingly seen as, at best, silly. Zhou Xiden is already facing a huge unavailability rating. Reinstating the mask mandate would sink any chance the democrats have (barring fraud) in the midterms.
Unfortunately, she remanded it to the CDC to fix the deficiencies and violations. She didn’t strike it down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.