Just in the White House says
it will not be appealing.
The ruling that ended the
mask mandate for planes,
trains and other transportation.
Unless this CDC thinks it is still needed.
Of course, the federal judge had
vacated the Biden administration's
travel mask mandate yesterday,
arguing the CDC had
overstepped its authority.
Our nine health expert
gave her perspective today,
telling us the medical
community does not agree and
doesn't support that decision.
To be honest, I'm entirely shocked because
we are in the middle of a pandemic right
now and as much as we want our lives
to get back to normal, the scientists.
The CDC, which is our largest
public Health Organization,
asked us for time so that they
could collect data on BA2,
which is a highly transmissible variant.
The most transmissible variant
of this pandemic thus far,
and instead of allowing them
the time to collect this data,
this legal decision has literally
pulled the rug out from under
this public Health Organization,
and I think the implications.
For each of us as individuals,
our fight against the pandemic
and any future decision that
the CDC makes are enormous.
So it's an idea.
Now, with the medical and legal
communities in a tug of war and
the governments in the middle,
big implications, of course, are legal.
Analyst Whitney Trailer joins us now,
so let's talk about the case and
the basis for the court's ruling.
Sure, so the case was filed.
This was one of many cases that was
filed related to the mask mandates.
They were filed by Public employees,
school teachers and everything else.
This one was a series of plaintiffs who
said that they couldn't breathe because
of the mask mandate and what have you,
and so they chose to file
this lawsuit in Florida.
And So what happened was it
was scheduled for a trial,
but they filed a summary judgment
motion and essentially saying,
hey, judge, can the CDC implement
this type of a mask restriction?
And the court looked at it and
just this trial court judge just
issued her ruling and said no,
that the CDC didn't have the
authority and the reasons why were.
One under the statute,
she said it exceeded their authority,
but then she said they didn't give
notice and comment period under
the Administrative Procedure Act.
So that was to give people 30 days
to comment on this new proposed
law or this new mask mandate.
And she said there was 30
days you could have done it.
This was eleven months into the
mask mandate or the pandemic,
so issuing it so late it was not necessary.
So she ruled against the
Biden administration.
So when we look at this this mass,
let's be honest, this is just been
a political hot button for months
now years really and they you
mentioned they filed in Florida.
I mean that was that was a
decision made based on what
they thought would help them.
It was a strategic decision for sure.
And unfortunately the judiciary has
gotten involved in this sort of
political issue because now this is
a judge and people are saying, well,
there's a Trump appointee and so it's
not unusual for plaintiffs to choose.
Where they're going to file a lawsuit,
particularly based on where it will be
appealed, and so is the appellate court.
More conservative or less conservative.
So they filed here in Florida,
knowing that there were conservative
judges on the bench and knowing the
11th Circuit would also be conservative.
So yes,
these are always strategic.
That way, yes, doesn't matter.
So will there be an appeal?
Obviously the the the
time frame is one thing,
the political weight is another thing.
The medical community is
what they have to say.
But when it comes to legality,
there's always the fear of precedent.
Establishing precedent of what the CDC
can and can't do with the White House,
what the administration can and can't do.
Do you see an appeal?
Well, it's a great question because
the mass mandate was only supposed to
be in effect until I think May 8th,
and so it only had a few weeks,
so will an appeal make much of a difference?
I don't know if it makes sense
from the monetary perspective,
but at the same time,
the fact that we've politicized
both the judges in a certain way.
That's my commentary.
I believe that's happened, and now the.
DC that's also very concerning
because that is our.
That's who we've put our trust in
as the authority on these medical
issues related to the pandemic,
which is why they had certain authority,
and it was the the mask, mandates,
and other mandates were deemed
lawful up until this one.
Some of them were deemed lawful
other than the 100 employees,
and this one relating to the transportation
is anything apolitical anymore
in even in the judicial system,
whether you're talking about.
A police officer killing someone,
whether it's a discussion
about abortion rights,
whether it's something about the CDC,
the mask, I mean, everything comes
with a political tag to it now,
and it seems to be that that is
that a taint is that realistic.
To think that we can stay above that.
I hope we do, because this is really
the heart of the Constitution.
The Constitution tried to achieve
a few things, one of which was a
check and balance system, and if the
courts are now seen as legislators.
Right, making decisions based
on you know political pressure.
Hmm, then we're gonna have a real
problem because the judiciary has
historically been seen by the public
as the one branch of government
that we have confidence in, right?
And we're absolutely going to
need faith in the judiciary when
we have these election issues,
which are seem to be going to
continue to to be the case.
And I think what we have to do
is the the confirmation process.
It's just become so partisan
that it's it's grandstanding.
And that's where I think some
of the damage starts.
Yeah, when you think about it.
I mean the toothpaste. There's been.
Toothpaste has been out of
the tube for a while here,
but when we talk about,
but we gotta pay attention and voters,
we need to pay attention and
y'all need to educate our
every. Every judge is now
described as a Biden appointee,
a Trump appointee, a Bush appointee,
you know, a Clinton appointee that
it comes with their description,
and it means it's supposed to mean something
it's supposed to tell you where they lean,
and that's the sad part.
Now we're discussing about the way justices
and and justice leans, and that's.
That's not good, not right?
Whitney, it's always good to visit with you.
We'll have much more to talk about now.
We'll look forward to your next visit,
thanks,
alright, thanks. Good to be here.