• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Figgy1

Premium Member
I for one don't want to be poked and prodded by somebody who isn't taking minimal precautions. I have immunocompromised relatives for whom the vaccines are not as effective how are they supposed to protect themselves. IMHO this is dangerous
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
I for one don't want to be poked and prodded by somebody who isn't taking minimal precautions. I have immunocompromised relatives for whom the vaccines are not as effective how are they supposed to protect themselves. IMHO this is dangerous
The question isn’t whether we see it as dangerous. The question is whether the president has the authority to put this mandate in place. As other cases that are similar, I imagine the final ruling with come from the Supreme Court. So definitely not over, even as the judge mentions.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
The question isn’t whether we see it as dangerous. The question is whether the president has the authority to put this mandate in place. As other cases that are similar, I imagine the final ruling with come from the Supreme Court. So definitely not over, even as the judge mentions.
Since the en banc decision in the 9th circuit went the other way you are correct. This decision needs to go the appeals court asap so it can be settled. Some seem to want to drag this on
 

Flugell

Well-Known Member
The question isn’t whether we see it as dangerous. The question is whether the president has the authority to put this mandate in place. As other cases that are similar, I imagine the final ruling with come from the Supreme Court. So definitely not over, even as the judge mentions.
Surely the ONLY thing that is of any importance is IF it is DANGEROUS. My husband is immunocompromised and has many hospital appointments as a result. I am very grateful that I am in the U.K.. The only circumstances that I can envisage that non vaccinated should be allowed to treat patients is if they have to declare their vaccination status and patients are offered an alternative medical practitioner of a similar status immediately. For some the vaccination status may not be an issue-they may not be vaccinated or overly concerned. For those who are concerned there should be an alternative.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Surely the ONLY thing that is of any importance is IF it is DANGEROUS.
Uh. No. I am Sorry, that’s really not how it works. And please don’t shoot the messenger but being in favor of a particular mandate has nothing to do whether it is lawful. And a judge doesn’t get to ignore the law. However, how one judge interprets the law may be different than another and they could reach differing rulings. It’s sort of why we have appeals courts and the Supreme Court.
 

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Surely the ONLY thing that is of any importance is IF it is DANGEROUS. My husband is immunocompromised and has many hospital appointments as a result. I am very grateful that I am in the U.K.. The only circumstances that I can envisage that non vaccinated should be allowed to treat patients is if they have to declare their vaccination status and patients are offered an alternative medical practitioner of a similar status immediately. For some the vaccination status may not be an issue-they may not be vaccinated or overly concerned. For those who are concerned there should be an alternative.
No, that is definitely not the only thing that is of any importance. In fact, from a legal perspective, it's really not of any importance at all. The president has a specific, defined set of powers that are under his authority. He doesn't gain new ones simply because something is important or a good idea. Even in a crisis, he is limited to what the law allows. The question being argued here is not whether mandates are a good idea or not. The question is whether he can do it on his own or whether it requires Congress to pass legislation. Ultimately, I think it will end up being the Supreme Court that decides that.
 

Flugell

Well-Known Member
Uh. No. I am Sorry, that’s really not how it works. And please don’t shoot the messenger but being in favor of a particular mandate has nothing to do whether it is lawful. And a judge doesn’t get to ignore the law. However, how one judge interprets the law may be different than another and they could reach differing rulings. It’s sort of why we have appeals courts and the Supreme Court.
Not trying to shoot the messenger at all! Thanks for the reply!
It is why I pointed out that I’m glad I’m in the U.K.!
I just find it hard to understand why a mandate issued by the President of the United States of America could be suspended by a judge, though I may have misunderstood this. If the Supreme Court is likely to make the final decision should the mandate not remain in place until that decision is made? The verdict of the judge(s) that has ruled so far should be considered by the Supreme Court who may decide to agree with them, or maybe not!
If my husband were treated by an unvaccinated medical practitioner and then caught COVID-19 in any of the various variants and then, God forbid, died, I would be seeking legal advice as to the possibility of suing for negligence at the lower end and murder at the extreme end. I realise that he could also be infected by someone who is fully vaccinated with the same consequences but at least that could be regarded as bad luck rather than a poor (in my opinion) choice. I know this may sound ridiculous but he is the love of my life!
I do understand the need for all decisions/mandates to be legal and that in the USA that is complicated but the right to life is enshrined in the constitution. Surely that covers it? Amendment 14 section 1, I believe.
I think my feelings are based primarily on a lack of understanding of the way the USA functions as a whole and the powers available to individual states so please excuse me if I have got it all wrong!
My primary thought is that patients should be given the option to be treated by vaccinated or non vaccinated medical practitioners according to their needs and beliefs.
Anyway thanks for explaining. Stay safe.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Not trying to shoot the messenger at all! Thanks for the reply!
It is why I pointed out that I’m glad I’m in the U.K.!
I just find it hard to understand why a mandate issued by the President of the United States of America could be suspended by a judge, though I may have misunderstood this. If the Supreme Court is likely to make the final decision should the mandate not remain in place until that decision is made? The verdict of the judge(s) that has ruled so far should be considered by the Supreme Court who may decide to agree with them, or maybe not!
In the US the courts determine the validity of government actions. The states are sort of in between the status of Scotland and Wales in the UK and the individual countries of the European Union. The original states were separate countries and so the federal government was set up as those separate countries giving some power to the new government and keeping the other powers for themselves. Professions and healthcare are widely regulated by the states.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
No, that is definitely not the only thing that is of any importance. In fact, from a legal perspective, it's really not of any importance at all. The president has a specific, defined set of powers that are under his authority. He doesn't gain new ones simply because something is important or a good idea. Even in a crisis, he is limited to what the law allows. The question being argued here is not whether mandates are a good idea or not. The question is whether he can do it on his own or whether it requires Congress to pass legislation. Ultimately, I think it will end up being the Supreme Court that decides that.
I think what will be decided is that Congress has to pass a law that gives the power to the executive branch specifically to mandate vaccinations under certain conditions.

This rule by executive order (by both parties) needs to be reigned in by the courts.
 

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Not trying to shoot the messenger at all! Thanks for the reply!
It is why I pointed out that I’m glad I’m in the U.K.!
I just find it hard to understand why a mandate issued by the President of the United States of America could be suspended by a judge, though I may have misunderstood this. If the Supreme Court is likely to make the final decision should the mandate not remain in place until that decision is made? The verdict of the judge(s) that has ruled so far should be considered by the Supreme Court who may decide to agree with them, or maybe not!
If my husband were treated by an unvaccinated medical practitioner and then caught COVID-19 in any of the various variants and then, God forbid, died, I would be seeking legal advice as to the possibility of suing for negligence at the lower end and murder at the extreme end. I realise that he could also be infected by someone who is fully vaccinated with the same consequences but at least that could be regarded as bad luck rather than a poor (in my opinion) choice. I know this may sound ridiculous but he is the love of my life!
I do understand the need for all decisions/mandates to be legal and that in the USA that is complicated but the right to life is enshrined in the constitution. Surely that covers it? Amendment 14 section 1, I believe.
I think my feelings are based primarily on a lack of understanding of the way the USA functions as a whole and the powers available to individual states so please excuse me if I have got it all wrong!
My primary thought is that patients should be given the option to be treated by vaccinated or non vaccinated medical practitioners according to their needs and beliefs.
Anyway thanks for explaining. Stay safe.
I can certainly understand how our system could be confusing for someone who is not from the United States. I imagine I would find the UK system equally baffling because I know nothing about it.

You have to remember that in the United States, the three branches of government are considered equal. So it's not the president at the top. He is the head of the executive branch and, yes, has a lot of power in the day-to-day implementation of policy. But the legislative branch (i.e., Congress) and the judicial branch (i.e., the courts) are equal and can, depending on the circumstances, limit or stop what the president does. The president, in fact, has very few inherent powers given to him by the Constitution. Most everything he is able to do has to be pursuant to some sort of legislation passed by Congress, though in practice they have delegated a great deal of autonomy to him. That's what's being debated in the courts now, though -- whether the president has the authority to issue vaccine mandates or whether that would take a new law passed by Congress.

Regarding whether or not the mandates should be in place while this works its way up to the Supreme Court, that is a complicated question. But it is not uncommon for our courts to issue a temporary injunction where they halt the implementation of a law, regulation, or executive order until a final decision by the courts is made. That decision is supposed to be made both on an analysis of who seems likely to prevail in the end, but also whether or not there will be "irreparable harm" if the particular policy is allowed to stand temporarily. In this case, for example, there is no way to undo a vaccination. So even if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the mandate, anyone who has been vaccinated in the meantime because of the mandate could not reverse that. For whatever reason, the courts so far have pretty uniformly decided to put the mandates on hold until the final ruling is made.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Would the president be able to enforce a quarantine order for visitors coming to the us and returning citizens?
Id have to research but I'd imagine that the power was included in the laws that govern the international border. There's rule 42 (I think I'm remembering that correctly but maybe not) that allows for refusal of entry based on communicable disease.
 

Yodascousin

Active Member
Tff
Id have to research but I'd imagine that the power was included in the laws that govern the international border. There's rule 42 (I think I'm remembering that correctly but maybe not) that allows for refusal of entry based on communicable disease

Thanks because there’s rumours that all arrivals must self isolate for seven days after arrival and wondered if that was actually enforceable or viable
 

Danissmart

Member
9D2E25CA-1934-4B37-9520-EBED6473391D.jpeg

😬
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom