Posted on 04/24/2022 1:15:40 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The White House has contradicted Dr. Anthony Fauci on mask mandate decisions, saying that the judiciary plays an "important role" and simply made an "incorrect decision."
Fauci said Thrusday he was "surprised and disappointed" with the court decision and stressed that such decisions should fall to CDC authority.
"We are concerned about that, about courts getting involved in things that are unequivocally public health decisions," he said. "This is a CDC issue. It should not have been a court issue."
He also told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that it’s a "bad precedent when decisions about public health issues are made by people, be they judges or what have you, that don’t have experience or expertise in public health."
"Obviously, the judiciary has an important role to play," White House COVID Coordinator Ashish Jha said on Sunday’s "State of the Union." "What you heard out of the administration, out of the Department of Justice, is the assessment that this is an incorrect decision and the DOJ is now appealing this decision."
A U.S. district court judge in Florida this week struck down the travel mask mandate for mass transit, leading to the Transportation Security Administration to announce it would no longer enforce mask requirements.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What a stupid, ignorant statement.
The white house complies with the courts...whenever they agree with them.
CDC is a farce: What about all the disease coming in to the country through the southern border?
It wasn't a health issue, it was a legal issue.
Haven’t seen the specific decision and rationale. Only what media reported.
The CDC is granted public health powers via the Public Health Service Act, passed by Congress and signed by the President in 1944. It’s not a new Covid authority, not even dating to President Trump’s time.
Section 361 specifies CDC power to declare regulations relevant to public health. Since the date is 1944, there is nothing about Covid in the text, nor probably need there be because the powers must be broad and encompass any disease imagined in 1944.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46758.pdf this is largely comprehensive and predates mask mandate declaration by that judge.
Congress and the president did allocate this regulatory issuing power to the agencies with expertise. If folks did not accept the credentials of the expertise, then they must necessarily confront the CDC officials about the credentials of staff. Not decisions. Credentials. The issue is expertise.
If you don’t believe in their expertise, make the point to CDC.
DOJ may be instructed politically to postpone challenge of the judge’s decree until the upcoming election, but they should not. Regardless of the subject matter, they are actually right about this. The judge is not qualified to have an opinion.
He or she IS qualified to make declarations about personal freedoms, but that was addressed in 1944. The judge’s job is to determine if the power exists within the PHSA, not whether or not he wants to fly without a mask or smoke on an airplane. Hard to read the PHSA details impartially and declare anything other than that the power exists at CDC, because Congress and Roosevelt wanted it to exist.
A court should require the CDC to produce the “science” that informs its evolving opinions. The scientific method demands testing, challenging, and reproducing those original results by uninvolved parties. If they will not provide the science, the mandates should be voided.
A court doesn’t have to. CDC provides many documents of the science behind their decision making.
You will not find any documents that will say masks reduce transmission of the virus on Delta Flight XXXX on Tuesday, March 21. You will find documents that will say masks reduce disease transmission in a general way, and based on that scientific evidence, evaluated by more than one expert on staff or hired as a board certified consultant, they decide what they decide.
I am not entirely certain, but it was determined by a judicial proceeding that carbon dioxide is an important atmospheric pollution factor, leading to much legislation directed at “controlling” carbon dioxide emissions, to the degree that “fossil fuels” (a misnomer, since most hydrocarbon fuels are formed by abiotic means and no “fossils” are involved) have become the subject of some very extreme regulations limiting their use or exploitation in many ways, resulting in economic strangulation of the entire world.
Therefore, the assertion of the judicial system in declaring the mask mandates invalid is entirely in conformity with this interpretation of how the law shall be applied, and mere scientific conjecture is without merit.
You are correct:
MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
A lot of FDR socialism should never have been allowed to become the norm.
Although you and many prosecutors may not like it juries are free to judge the law as well as whether someone broke the law.
Government edicts should ALWAYS be questioned and scrutinized in order to keep the Republic and personal freedom.
Furthermore we all have seen arrogant clueless experts cause unnecessary harm and waste.
If an expert tells me the Sun is shining I’ll look for myself to be sure.
For Brandon it is just a “role.”
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.