Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Yep…
it’s not that they aren’t sick and tired of this and aren’t in fear of more lost time and money
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
it’s not that they aren’t sick and tired of this and aren’t in fear of more lost time and money
willtravel
Well-Known Member
Why is this member considered a ghost account by you?
Because they appear to be yet another account coming around to do little else than argue COVID. Not the first, and unfortunately probably not the last...
Virtual Toad
Well-Known Member
Absolutely no one is talking about who has primary agency. We are discussing the short sighted and frankly moronic move by a government to prevent its own appropriate agency from providing scientifically sound guidance, advice and advocacy to teenagers.
Patcheslee
Well-Known Member
Teens are already being taught D.A.R.E. , STIs, birth control, etc. I think they have the emotional and intellectual intelligence to be given information at least on a vaccination. But we also know how controversial those subjects are as well.
Don't know about bribing but to make little ones wear masks , make it fun for them. When they wear a mask the little ones can also wear a cape so they can be a superhero to crush covid!
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
That’s my guess…
came out the Gate using sarcasm and “vaguely familiar language” on other threads…
that’s typically a “veteran” of here or another playground
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Yes, the shot us free but the administrative costs are not.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I think you’re right about the lack of cultural memory. And it’s not just polio but the whole list of diseases that are just no longer a thing. If nobody you know ever had X then you can go on believing that it is not a serious disease and you are protected because you have really expensive pee.
Even not knowing anyone who suffered through polio the images of children lined up in iron lungs still seems to evoke a visceral reaction. It’s why I keep asking about polio. It’s still somewhat known and even those who are okay with people dying of COVID-19 seem to draw the line at thinking hospitals full of paralyzed children is in any way better.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
I've seen similar posts on Facebook ("If they have to bribe or coerce people to get a vaccine then that's proof that it doesn't work"). Of course, these nonsensical posts always come from people who are anti-vax and determined that the vaccines don't work before they were even done testing them, so I'd expect nothing less from them. As Bill Burr put it in an interview with Conan (I'm paraphrasing), these people think the government wants to control us by killing all the "sheep who are easily controlled" with a vaccine while the "free thinkers" who refuse to take it and will question everything will be the only ones left. There's an obvious major flaw with such a plan, but the "smart" ones don't seem to notice it.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Under the CARES act insurers are not allowed to share the cost with customers so they have to cover the full administrative cost. Since there’s no such thing as a free lunch, everyone with insurance will eventually cover those costs through rate increases, but there should be no out of pocket expense for anyone to get the shot.
I even got a complimentary plastic protector with my CDC card when I got my second Moderna shot.
ArmoredRodent
Well-Known Member
Not a "scholar," but a working (well, mostly retired) Supreme Court practitioner. Who also likes Disney.My question is whether there is any precedent for them to even follow. Need some legal scholars to take a break from the news stations and come in here.
They are compatible.It's actually a very well-written decision, and interesting because it goes into complicated areas like the First Amendment and the dormant commerce clause. And it fits right into the trend both on the Supreme Court and in the lower courts (which I've discussed in other threads) that the deference shown to government officials' decisions early in the pandemic (when the urgency was great, information lacking, and remedies non-existent) has subsided, so the government has to prove its case using specific evidence rather than just speculating about the public interest. See, e.g., Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 592 US __, (2020) (striking lockdown rules where the result was readily-apparent violations of the First Amendment because of a lack of narrow tailoring of the rules).
I may write more later if needed, but for right now, the NCL opinion, without citing it, uses the proper standard of review under Jacobson and the First Amendment cases (see, e.g., Americans for Prosperity Fndtn/Thomas More Legal Center v. Bonta, July 1, 2021), and under that standard finds:
1) Compelling governmental interest: Compelled speech is judged under strict scrutiny except in very limited circumstances (where exacting scrutiny is required). Judge Williams pointed out that the statute was directed at the CONTENT of the compelled speech ("Here's my documentation that I've been vaccinated"). That's pretty much saying the government loses. Florida claimed two governmental interests: protecting medical privacy and protecting the unvaccinated from discrimination. It did not provide any evidence demonstrating its rule protected either one, just like in AFPF/TMLC; and,
2) Narrowly-tailored remedy: Florida blocked the cruise lines from requiring documentation of vaccination but allowed oral statements to the same effect, so they lost the case right there. Judge Williams went on with the narrow tailoring review, but the case was already done. Could they revise the Executive Order and legislative ratification? Sure, but then they'd have to prove their new rule met the same strict scrutiny standard. Can they? Not likely.
As to whether the Supreme Court will uphold this case? Likely won't even take it up, because there's no conflict among the circuits. Now that we're further into the pandemic, we're back to the traditional Supreme Court focus on uniformity of law and jurisprudence across the country, and every court is upholding vaccination mandates under Jacobson. But assuming they thought it was an important enough vehicle to instruct the lower courts yet again about the legal doctrines that control these reviews, if they reversed this one it would confuse the lower courts about Diocese of Brooklyn and other pandemic precedent. So, nothing to do with conservative/libertarian/liberal Court (we don't have a 6-3 Court right now, we have a 3-3-3 Court), just the traditional way the Court does business.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Thank you for the most informative post everNot a "scholar," but a working (well, mostly retired) Supreme Court practitioner. Who also likes Disney.
It's actually a very well-written decision, and interesting because it goes into complicated areas like the First Amendment and the dormant commerce clause. And it fits right into the trend both on the Supreme Court and in the lower courts (which I've discussed in other threads) that the deference shown to government officials' decisions early in the pandemic (when the urgency was great, information lacking, and remedies non-existent) has subsided, so the government has to prove its case using specific evidence rather than just speculating about the public interest. See, e.g., Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 592 US __, (2020) (striking lockdown rules where the result was readily-apparent violations of the First Amendment because of a lack of narrow tailoring of the rules).
I may write more later if needed, but for right now, the NCL opinion, without citing it, uses the proper standard of review under Jacobson and the First Amendment cases (see, e.g., Americans for Prosperity Fndtn/Thomas More Legal Center v. Bonta, July 1, 2021), and under that standard finds:
1) Compelling governmental interest: Compelled speech is judged under strict scrutiny except in very limited circumstances (where exacting scrutiny is required). Judge Williams pointed out that the statute was directed at the CONTENT of the compelled speech ("Here's my documentation that I've been vaccinated"). That's pretty much saying the government loses. Florida claimed two governmental interests: protecting medical privacy and protecting the unvaccinated from discrimination. It did not provide any evidence demonstrating its rule protected either one, just like in AFPF/TMLC; and,
2) Narrowly-tailored remedy: Florida blocked the cruise lines from requiring documentation of vaccination but allowed oral statements to the same effect, so they lost the case right there. Judge Williams went on with the narrow tailoring review, but the case was already done. Could they revise the Executive Order and legislative ratification? Sure, but then they'd have to prove their new rule met the same strict scrutiny standard. Can they? Not likely.
As to whether the Supreme Court will uphold this case? Likely won't even take it up, because there's no conflict among the circuits. Now that we're further into the pandemic, we're back to the traditional Supreme Court focus on uniformity of law and jurisprudence across the country, and every court is upholding vaccination mandates under Jacobson. But assuming they thought it was an important enough vehicle to instruct the lower courts yet again about the legal doctrines that control these reviews, if they reversed this one it would confuse the lower courts about Diocese of Brooklyn and other pandemic precedent. So, nothing to do with conservative/libertarian/liberal Court (we don't have a 6-3 Court right now, we have a 3-3-3 Court), just the traditional way the Court does business.
I dont see WDW shutting down really. I suspect they have quite a few cancellations already and want to stem the tide as much as they can. I just hope the routes they do take involve individual protection instead of attraction/event closures. I agree the 50th celebrations are a big deal for them.
Might come down to one simple idea. Going to a park has its inherent risk of covid exposure, minor though it is, and always will. If %50 of potential visitors (late-teens/adults not young children) did not get vaccines, and 1/2 of those stay home or go elsewhere, the percentage that remains having it maybe jumps to %75. There is nothing to back that up nor is it a reasonable factor in making an actual decision. Just an interesting thought.
Might come down to one simple idea. Going to a park has its inherent risk of covid exposure, minor though it is, and always will. If %50 of potential visitors (late-teens/adults not young children) did not get vaccines, and 1/2 of those stay home or go elsewhere, the percentage that remains having it maybe jumps to %75. There is nothing to back that up nor is it a reasonable factor in making an actual decision. Just an interesting thought.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Why do you assume the risk of exposure is minor?
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
I was wondering if DeSantis would just let this die, having made his symbolic point, but it looks like he's appealing the ruling.Not a "scholar," but a working (well, mostly retired) Supreme Court practitioner. Who also likes Disney.
It's actually a very well-written decision, and interesting because it goes into complicated areas like the First Amendment and the dormant commerce clause. And it fits right into the trend both on the Supreme Court and in the lower courts (which I've discussed in other threads) that the deference shown to government officials' decisions early in the pandemic (when the urgency was great, information lacking, and remedies non-existent) has subsided, so the government has to prove its case using specific evidence rather than just speculating about the public interest. See, e.g., Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 592 US __, (2020) (striking lockdown rules where the result was readily-apparent violations of the First Amendment because of a lack of narrow tailoring of the rules).
I may write more later if needed, but for right now, the NCL opinion, without citing it, uses the proper standard of review under Jacobson and the First Amendment cases (see, e.g., Americans for Prosperity Fndtn/Thomas More Legal Center v. Bonta, July 1, 2021), and under that standard finds:
1) Compelling governmental interest: Compelled speech is judged under strict scrutiny except in very limited circumstances (where exacting scrutiny is required). Judge Williams pointed out that the statute was directed at the CONTENT of the compelled speech ("Here's my documentation that I've been vaccinated"). That's pretty much saying the government loses. Florida claimed two governmental interests: protecting medical privacy and protecting the unvaccinated from discrimination. It did not provide any evidence demonstrating its rule protected either one, just like in AFPF/TMLC; and,
2) Narrowly-tailored remedy: Florida blocked the cruise lines from requiring documentation of vaccination but allowed oral statements to the same effect, so they lost the case right there. Judge Williams went on with the narrow tailoring review, but the case was already done. Could they revise the Executive Order and legislative ratification? Sure, but then they'd have to prove their new rule met the same strict scrutiny standard. Can they? Not likely.
As to whether the Supreme Court will uphold this case? Likely won't even take it up, because there's no conflict among the circuits. Now that we're further into the pandemic, we're back to the traditional Supreme Court focus on uniformity of law and jurisprudence across the country, and every court is upholding vaccination mandates under Jacobson. But assuming they thought it was an important enough vehicle to instruct the lower courts yet again about the legal doctrines that control these reviews, if they reversed this one it would confuse the lower courts about Diocese of Brooklyn and other pandemic precedent. So, nothing to do with conservative/libertarian/liberal Court (we don't have a 6-3 Court right now, we have a 3-3-3 Court), just the traditional way the Court does business.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/CPNB7TUL25IV5HUULEQBBTNBZQ.jpg)
Florida appeals ruling allowing cruise to use 'vaccine passports'
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said on Monday the state will appeal a federal judge's ruling that allowed Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd (NCLH.N) to require Miami passengers show documented proof they are vaccinated against COVID-19, which he has called discriminatory.
www.reuters.com
I wonder how closely Disney watches these developments?
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Cool, thanks!! I knew there had to be someone..Not a "scholar," but a working (well, mostly retired) Supreme Court practitioner. Who also likes Disney.
It's actually a very well-written decision, and interesting because it goes into complicated areas like the First Amendment and the dormant commerce clause. And it fits right into the trend both on the Supreme Court and in the lower courts (which I've discussed in other threads) that the deference shown to government officials' decisions early in the pandemic (when the urgency was great, information lacking, and remedies non-existent) has subsided, so the government has to prove its case using specific evidence rather than just speculating about the public interest. See, e.g., Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 592 US __, (2020) (striking lockdown rules where the result was readily-apparent violations of the First Amendment because of a lack of narrow tailoring of the rules).
I may write more later if needed, but for right now, the NCL opinion, without citing it, uses the proper standard of review under Jacobson and the First Amendment cases (see, e.g., Americans for Prosperity Fndtn/Thomas More Legal Center v. Bonta, July 1, 2021), and under that standard finds:
1) Compelling governmental interest: Compelled speech is judged under strict scrutiny except in very limited circumstances (where exacting scrutiny is required). Judge Williams pointed out that the statute was directed at the CONTENT of the compelled speech ("Here's my documentation that I've been vaccinated"). That's pretty much saying the government loses. Florida claimed two governmental interests: protecting medical privacy and protecting the unvaccinated from discrimination. It did not provide any evidence demonstrating its rule protected either one, just like in AFPF/TMLC; and,
2) Narrowly-tailored remedy: Florida blocked the cruise lines from requiring documentation of vaccination but allowed oral statements to the same effect, so they lost the case right there. Judge Williams went on with the narrow tailoring review, but the case was already done. Could they revise the Executive Order and legislative ratification? Sure, but then they'd have to prove their new rule met the same strict scrutiny standard. Can they? Not likely.
As to whether the Supreme Court will uphold this case? Likely won't even take it up, because there's no conflict among the circuits. Now that we're further into the pandemic, we're back to the traditional Supreme Court focus on uniformity of law and jurisprudence across the country, and every court is upholding vaccination mandates under Jacobson. But assuming they thought it was an important enough vehicle to instruct the lower courts yet again about the legal doctrines that control these reviews, if they reversed this one it would confuse the lower courts about Diocese of Brooklyn and other pandemic precedent. So, nothing to do with conservative/libertarian/liberal Court (we don't have a 6-3 Court right now, we have a 3-3-3 Court), just the traditional way the Court does business.
- Status