NPR lays it out pretty clearly why this dipshit didn't know what she was talking about when it comes to masks: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... _bbuv12fZM
But I am confident this is another article Matt will ignore.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 30 at 9:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Unqualified Shit for Brains Judge Misinterpreted Law
-
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Unqualified Shit for Brains Judge Misinterpreted Law
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: Unqualified Shit for Brains Judge Misinterpreted Law
This drivel should be ignored and was already addressed by the WSJ yesterday:
The NPR article doesn't mention the great judge was relying on the precedent. It also attempts to suggest an agency can do whatever the hell it wants during a health emergency, which the judge correctly ruled they can't.Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority and never clearly explained its justification for the broad mask mandate, among other legal infirmities. It’s a strong opinion based in a careful reading of the Public Health Service Act of 1944, which was the basis for the CDC’s order.
Judge Mizelle says the agency stretched the meaning of the word “sanitation” in the law, which was never intended to justify such sweeping control over the behavior of millions of Americans. She quotes the words of Jeff Sutton, Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the vaccine mandate case that “this is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power.’”
It certainly isn’t, which helps to justify the judge’s national injunction in the mask case. National injunctions should be rare, but it would be hard to narrow, by geography or type of transport, a nationwide mask requirement for all public transportation.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
Re: Unqualified Shit for Brains Judge Misinterpreted Law
Is this really the best the left has got? Latching on to one single ambiguous word in a 1944 law? Time for me to put on my legal hat. Here is the full paragraph from the law, with line breaks to make it easier to follow:
Next let's look at the things the Surgeon General may do. The focus seems to be specifically on "sanitation," which, first things first, let's look at how this word is used, if at all, elsewhere within this law. It actually DOES appear 3 other times, each time in the context of "field sanitation."
-First use: "field sanitation" as part of a list.
-Second use: "acceptable environmental health standards, including enforcement of standards for sanitation in migratory agricultural worker and seasonal agricultural worker labor camps"
-Third use: "assessment of problems related to camp and field sanitation, exposure to unsafe levels of agricultural chemicals including
pesticides, and other environmental health hazards to which migratory agricultural workers and seasonal agricultural workers, and
members of their families, are exposed."
So the word "sanitation" is used, as best I can interpret, in the context of environmental cleanliness, and specifically, doing what is necessary to keep an environment (such as in this instance an airplane cabin) free of disease.
So could a mask fall within this? Maybe. But there's a few problems. First I would note the language of the section of the law in question: The Surgeon General may do things necessary to PREVENT the spread of disease. It doesn't say slow down or reduce, but specifically PREVENT. So the question to me is, do masks do this? I would say absolutely not. At best, they marginally slow down the spread. They certainly don't prevent it.
Next, I would suggest that making EVERYONE, regardless of whether they're currently sick or not wear a mask, is overly broad. Simply being a human being does not necessarily rise to the level of being a carrier of a disease. You can't just make everyone do something because one or two people in a large group may be a threat.
My conclusion: Masks do not prevent the spread of disease, and even if they did, making every single human being wear one is overly broad.
And a side-note as to the NPR piece: They complain about precedent. What they fail to mention is that Congress+The President could act today and amend the 1944 law to specifically include facial coverings.
So let's break this down. Right out of the gate, I would suggest that this law would not be applicable to in-state flights that travel from one city to another within the same state as its authority only extends to regulating the spread of disease from a foreign country to the US or from one state to another within the US.SEC. 361. ø264¿ (a) The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the
-introduction,
-transmission,
-or spread of communicable diseases
from
-foreign countries into the States or possessions,
-or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.
For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may 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.
Next let's look at the things the Surgeon General may do. The focus seems to be specifically on "sanitation," which, first things first, let's look at how this word is used, if at all, elsewhere within this law. It actually DOES appear 3 other times, each time in the context of "field sanitation."
-First use: "field sanitation" as part of a list.
-Second use: "acceptable environmental health standards, including enforcement of standards for sanitation in migratory agricultural worker and seasonal agricultural worker labor camps"
-Third use: "assessment of problems related to camp and field sanitation, exposure to unsafe levels of agricultural chemicals including
pesticides, and other environmental health hazards to which migratory agricultural workers and seasonal agricultural workers, and
members of their families, are exposed."
So the word "sanitation" is used, as best I can interpret, in the context of environmental cleanliness, and specifically, doing what is necessary to keep an environment (such as in this instance an airplane cabin) free of disease.
So could a mask fall within this? Maybe. But there's a few problems. First I would note the language of the section of the law in question: The Surgeon General may do things necessary to PREVENT the spread of disease. It doesn't say slow down or reduce, but specifically PREVENT. So the question to me is, do masks do this? I would say absolutely not. At best, they marginally slow down the spread. They certainly don't prevent it.
Next, I would suggest that making EVERYONE, regardless of whether they're currently sick or not wear a mask, is overly broad. Simply being a human being does not necessarily rise to the level of being a carrier of a disease. You can't just make everyone do something because one or two people in a large group may be a threat.
My conclusion: Masks do not prevent the spread of disease, and even if they did, making every single human being wear one is overly broad.
And a side-note as to the NPR piece: They complain about precedent. What they fail to mention is that Congress+The President could act today and amend the 1944 law to specifically include facial coverings.
Re: Unqualified Shit for Brains Judge Misinterpreted Law
Don't insult the judge. Insult the lawmakers who passed the law.
Re: Unqualified Shit for Brains Judge Misinterpreted Law
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Unqualified Shit for Brains Judge Misinterpreted Law
BRYCE: Be sure that you quote me correctly.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8571
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Unqualified Shit for Brains Judge Misinterpreted Law
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!