If N-95s work and are not in short demand, why does everyone else have to wear a mask. Just put a mask on if you feel unsafe and lets return to normal.
(no message)
And a skeptic might question whether they "only wanted a two week extension."
Society comes into play overruling the court's finding in favor of plaintiffs' rule 12 motion for summary judgment?
If you are arguing science, please set forth the statute and/or rule of law that allows such opinions to be admissible evidence to supersede the statutory lack of authority of the CDC to make rules?
What federal rule of evidence allows an exception to the federal rules of evidence for the admissibility of said opinion?
Btw: Other courts have previously prohibited two of the three rules the CDC published, this case involves the third so she is not setting any new ground here. So all of you who think this is a good case for appeal raise your hands but you have to show valid legal substance.
No cheating, no drama, read the opinion before answering. Also no whining;. I'll wait.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2021cv01693/391798/53/
One federal judge should not have the power to overrule the CDC.
That’s the issue.
I think it is time to drop the mask mandate on planes, but I support the decision to appeal.
(no message)
Folks aren't going back to masking without mass deaths.
The CDC makes public health policy, not Federalist society zealots on the bench.
Is that Crackpottery? Or transitional?
completely ass backwards from his handlers. What's a guy to believe?
Crackpot = not aligned to proggie causes.
You continue to beclown yourself, every day.
Every prog loves to point out the judge's age. Why is this relevant?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
"One tyrant at a federal agency should not have the power to legislate over all 50 states."
Who else here recalls all the proggie angst when lone federal judges were striking down immigration policy?
Yeah, me neither.
(no message)
(no message)
"In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the head of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary said that a majority of his group had deemed that Mizelle did "not meet the requisite minimum standard of experience necessary to perform the responsibilities required by the high office of a federal trial judge."
"Since her admission to the bar Ms. Mizelle has not tried a case, civil or criminal, as lead or co-counsel," the ABA said, She did, however, have four federal clerkships, spend 10 months at a law firm and "approximately three years in government practice," which the ABA said equates to five years of trial court experience.
The ABA said her integrity and demeanor were not in question and complimented her keen intellect, strong work ethic and impressive resume.
"These attributes however simply do not compensate for the short time she has actually practiced law and her lack of meaningful trial experience," it added."
----------------------
>33 yrs old, with very little experience...yet a lifetime appointment to the federal bench...to some people, demonstrated excellence over time isn't a requirement...IMHO, this is not the path toward "Making America Great".
Link: https://www.npr.org/2022/04/19/1093566982/florida-mask-mandate-judge-kathryn-mizelle
You have zero credibility.
Nobody follows your links.
You are a fake account.
respond anyway...you deserve that much.
annoying and hard to shake
(no message)
Remember when?
Link: Oopsie....
"President Barack Obama had a number of potential nominees who were rated as “not qualified” — who he then didn’t actually nominate.
Trump’s decision to skip the ABA vetting process means that he’s then nominating people who the ABA doesn’t feel are qualified, and that view becomes public. It seems like Trump’s had more poorly reviewed nominees than Obama because Obama didn’t actually nominate his poorly reviewed candidates.
Of course, that doesn’t exactly absolve Trump. Obama possibly chose not to nominate those candidates not because he wanted to avoid the black mark of a poor rating, but because they were poorly rated.
Trump pressed forward anyway. While it’s possible that other presidents have advanced more people who were rated as not qualified, by actually nominating his picks, TRUMP IS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE "NOT QUALIFIED" PEOPLE ACTUALLY CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE. (emphasis mine)."
----------------------
The judge in this case is clearly "Not Qualified"...btw, she didn't even allow for arguments on the case...not sure how someone with zero medical or epidemiological experience can do that...unless that doesn't even matter to her "Judgement".
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/10/how-unusual-are-trumps-not-qualified-judicial-nominations/
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Get pissed and deny it all you'd like Chris. It is evident to all who post here. You're simply not seeing it. It is a massive blind spot for you. But it is for most partisans. Of which you are most assuredly one, in spite of your protestations to the contrary.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
"And each time, your answer can always be summed up as "but it was okay when we did it." - Pretty much sums this up.
protected behind their cloth mask, why the panic of making everyone else wear one? It should have always been about choice and not virtue signaling.