Vaccine

Sounds legit.



The TRUTH is quite a reality check.
Especially when the LIES were your only support.
 
If anything the judge is saying if you want to make these rules it has to be passed through congress. An agency simply does not have the power to make these broad decisions.

Judge is saying do it the right way if you want a mask mandate on public transportation. That means going through the house, the senate and then having the prez sign it into law.
In this particular case, there was a law passed. It explicitly gave CDC director the power to make policy to "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 law explicitly defers to the judgement of the CDC director to determine what is and what is not necessary. The law does not authorize a judge to substitute her views for those of the CDC director.

This is a clear case of an activist judge. She had a law in front of her. The law clearly defers to the judgement of the CDC director. And the judge does whatever she wants anyway.

Same problem as Row v Wade. A judge or justice reads the law, but doesn’t like what it says. So the judge invents things that aren’t in the law to get the result they want.

Sometimes I agree with the judge’s policy decision, sometimes I don’t. But in no case do I like this process. There is a reason we do not have lifetime appointments for policy-making positions. When judges start making policy, that’s exactly what we have.
 
In this particular case, there was a law passed. It explicitly gave CDC director the power to make policy to "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 law explicitly defers to the judgement of the CDC director to determine what is and what is not necessary. The law does not authorize a judge to substitute her views for those of the CDC director.

This is a clear case of an activist judge. She had a law in front of her. The law clearly defers to the judgement of the CDC director. And the judge does whatever she wants anyway.

Same problem as Row v Wade. A judge or justice reads the law, but doesn’t like what it says. So the judge invents things that aren’t in the law to get the result they want.

Sometimes I agree with the judge’s policy decision, sometimes I don’t. But in no case do I like this process. There is a reason we do not have lifetime appointments for policy-making positions. When judges start making policy, that’s exactly what we have.

The judge in question was rated "non-qualified" by the ABA due to her complete lack of courtroom experience when t nominated her after he lost the election in November 2020. Moscow Mitch still controlled the Senate then, so she sailed through without a single Democrat voting for her confirmation.
 
Last edited:
In this particular case, there was a law passed. It explicitly gave CDC director the power to make policy to "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 law explicitly defers to the judgement of the CDC director to determine what is and what is not necessary. The law does not authorize a judge to substitute her views for those of the CDC director.

This is a clear case of an activist judge. She had a law in front of her. The law clearly defers to the judgement of the CDC director. And the judge does whatever she wants anyway.

Same problem as Row v Wade. A judge or justice reads the law, but doesn’t like what it says. So the judge invents things that aren’t in the law to get the result they want.

Sometimes I agree with the judge’s policy decision, sometimes I don’t. But in no case do I like this process. There is a reason we do not have lifetime appointments for policy-making positions. When judges start making policy, that’s exactly what we have.
Actually the judge cited a case regarding the CDC and this issue where the SC said they did not have blanket authority. So not an activist judge. She used an opinion regarding the CDC issue by the SC. That was in Aug of 2021. And that opinion stated the CDC cannot act in certain ways.

There are a variety of legal issues that have come before the SC where they rules agencies did not/do not have blanket power.

The press likes to leave that out.
 
The judge in question was rated "non-qualified" by the ABA due to her complete lack of courtroom experience when t nominated her after he lost the election in November 2020. Moscow Mitch still controlled the Senate then, so she sailed through with a single Democrat voting for her confirmation.
The ABA long ago stopped being a neutral party. They today are mainly a leftist organization.
 
Actually the judge cited a case regarding the CDC and this issue where the SC said they did not have blanket authority. So not an activist judge. She used an opinion regarding the CDC issue by the SC. That was in Aug of 2021. And that opinion stated the CDC cannot act in certain ways.

There are a variety of legal issues that have come before the SC where they rules agencies did not/do not have blanket power.

The press likes to leave that out.

In her opinion, she said about masks "At most, it traps virus droplets".

That is exactly their function.
 
The more I see examples of people who graduated law school, passed the bar exam somewhere, and became judges, I lament that I didn't pursue that career option.
 
In her opinion, she said about masks "At most, it traps virus droplets".

That is exactly their function.
Yep to catch droplets. However a virus particle is vastly smaller and they are not designed to stop the spread of an virus.

But you pretend not to know that.

Also if masks work, getting rid of the travel mandate wont make a difference. After all the function of your mask does not depend on whether or not I am wearing one.
 
The more I see examples of people who graduated law school, passed the bar exam somewhere, and became judges, I lament that I didn't pursue that career option.
So you could be a partisan hack on the bench and not just on a soccer forum?

Yep you missed your calling.

I can see you now. Your honor, the law clearly states X and X. And all day long your go to response would be...LINK?
 
Yep to catch droplets. However a virus particle is vastly smaller and they are not designed to stop the spread of an virus.

But you pretend not to know that.

Also if masks work, getting rid of the travel mandate wont make a difference. After all the function of your mask does not depend on whether or not I am wearing one.

We have been through this many times before, so by now I must believe that you are either a bonehead or a liar. Your pick. The virus does not survive outside the exhaled drops, exactly those that a mask is intended to stop.
 
We have been through this many times before, so by now I must believe that you are either a bonehead or a liar. Your pick. The virus does not survive outside the exhaled drops, exactly those that a mask is intended to stop.
How many times does this have to be revisited? Masks are hardly effective. Effective against droplets...sure, against aerosol transmission? not even close. The idea that we've gone years wearing cloth diapers on our faces is hysterical. Luckily, most of society is cordial and wore them to make others feel better. Humans aren't so bad after all, even though many humans recognize the silliness of cloth masks. Luv the bandanas and the neck gators though - lovely way to spruce up your outfit from time to time.
 
How many times does this have to be revisited? Masks are hardly effective. Effective against droplets...sure, against aerosol transmission? not even close. The idea that we've gone years wearing cloth diapers on our faces is hysterical. Luckily, most of society is cordial and wore them to make others feel better. Humans aren't so bad after all, even though many humans recognize the silliness of cloth masks. Luv the bandanas and the neck gators though - lovely way to spruce up your outfit from time to time.

Do you want to restart the whole mask education program again?

Heavy sigh --

 
In her opinion, she said about masks "At most, it traps virus droplets".

That is exactly their function.
The impressive part is how she managed to become an expert on aerosol dynamics without ever taking an advanced physics class.

That, or she's straying about eight miles outside her lane.
 
Back
Top