http://reason.com/2022/04/27/anthony-fauci-thinks-scientific-expertise-trumps-the-rule-of-law
Anthony Fauci Thinks Scientific Expertise Trumps the Rule of Law
The president’s COVID-19 adviser embodies the arrogance of technocrats
who are sure they know what’s best for us.
JACOB SULLUM | 4.27.2022 12:01 AM
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint
friendly versionCopy page URL
Anthony-Fauci-1-11-22
(CNP/AdMedia/Sipa/Newscom)
Anthony Fauci was "surprised and disappointed" by last week's ruling
against the mask mandate for travelers issued by the Centers for Disease >Control and Prevention (CDC). "This is a CDC issue," President Joe
Biden's top medical adviser told CNN. "It should not have been a court >issue."
Fauci, who objects to federalism as well as judicial review, embodies
the mild-mannered arrogance of technocrats who assume their scientific >expertise trumps the rule of law. Because they believe they know what is
best for us, they are dismayed by any attempt to limit their influence
or restrain their power.
Fauci did vaguely criticize the substance of U.S. District Judge Kathryn >Kimball Mizelle's decision, calling her reasoning "not sound" and "not >particularly firm." But his main point was that she had no business >determining whether the CDC had complied with the law, because courts
should not be "getting involved in things that are unequivocally public >health decisions."
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki concurred: "Public health
decisions shouldn't be made by the courts. They should be made by public >health experts."
But Mizelle did not make a public health decision; she made a legal
decision, based on her understanding of the relevant statutes. Contrary
to Psaki's implication, courts are not only authorized but obligated to
make such decisions, as she surely would have conceded had Mizelle ruled
in the CDC's favor.
The Justice Department is appealing Mizelle's ruling, but it did not
seek a stay that would have restored the mask requirement while the case
is pending. Although that omission may seem puzzling given the CDC's
claim that the mandate "remains necessary for the public health," it
makes sense if the administration's goal is to facilitate future power
grabs by keeping the agency's statutory authority as vague as possible.
If there is "no place for the courts" to assess the legality of >disease-control edicts, as Fauci maintains, it follows that the Supreme
Court erred not only by blocking the CDC's nationwide eviction
moratorium but even by taking up the issue. Evidently, it also should
have stayed out of the dispute over the federal vaccination-or-testing >requirement for private employees, which it likewise deemed illegal.
Fauci's impatience with legal niceties has been apparent for some time.
"The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in
doing things the way they want to do it," he complained in a 2020
interview with BBC Radio 4, "as opposed to in response to federal
mandates, which are relatively rarely given."
The result, Fauci explained, was "a considerable disparity, with states
doing things differently in a nonconsistent way." That "disparity," he >averred, "has been a major weakness in our response" to the pandemic.
The "leeway" that bothers Fauci is required by the Constitution, which
leaves states with the primary responsibility for addressing public
health threats under a broad "police power" that the federal government
was never given. So his beef is not simply with the way COVID-19 policy >happened to play out in the United States; it is an objection to our
system of government.
Biden Begins Using Clemency To Ameliorate the Damage Done by the
Draconian Drug Policies He Long Supported
That system limits the federal government to specifically enumerated
powers, which do not include a general mandate to fight communicable
diseases or protect public health. At the same time, the Constitution
and Supreme Court precedent prohibit states as well as the federal
government from violating certain rights, even during a public health >emergency.
That explains why courts heard and sometimes upheld objections to
COVID-19 control policies that restricted religious gatherings, the
right to keep and bear arms, and access to abortion. If Fauci is right
that such policies should be left to government experts, all of those >interventions were misbegotten, regardless of their legal merits.
"It's a bad precedent when decisions about public health issues are made
by people [who] don't have experience or expertise in public health,"
Fauci told Fox News on Saturday. Americans should be thankful that the
courts do not share his confusion.
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://reason.com/2022/04/27/anthony-fauci-thinks-scientific-expertise-trumps-the-rule-of-law
Anthony Fauci Thinks Scientific Expertise Trumps the Rule of Law
The president’s COVID-19 adviser embodies the arrogance of technocrats
who are sure they know what’s best for us.
JACOB SULLUM | 4.27.2022 12:01 AM
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint
friendly versionCopy page URL
Anthony-Fauci-1-11-22
(CNP/AdMedia/Sipa/Newscom)
Anthony Fauci was "surprised and disappointed" by last week's ruling
against the mask mandate for travelers issued by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). "This is a CDC issue," President Joe
Biden's top medical adviser told CNN. "It should not have been a court
issue."
Fauci, who objects to federalism as well as judicial review, embodies
the mild-mannered arrogance of technocrats who assume their scientific
expertise trumps the rule of law. Because they believe they know what is
best for us, they are dismayed by any attempt to limit their influence
or restrain their power.
Fauci did vaguely criticize the substance of U.S. District Judge Kathryn
Kimball Mizelle's decision, calling her reasoning "not sound" and "not
particularly firm." But his main point was that she had no business
determining whether the CDC had complied with the law, because courts
should not be "getting involved in things that are unequivocally public
health decisions."
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki concurred: "Public health
decisions shouldn't be made by the courts. They should be made by public
health experts."
But Mizelle did not make a public health decision; she made a legal
decision, based on her understanding of the relevant statutes. Contrary
to Psaki's implication, courts are not only authorized but obligated to
make such decisions, as she surely would have conceded had Mizelle ruled
in the CDC's favor.
The Justice Department is appealing Mizelle's ruling, but it did not
seek a stay that would have restored the mask requirement while the case
is pending. Although that omission may seem puzzling given the CDC's
claim that the mandate "remains necessary for the public health," it
makes sense if the administration's goal is to facilitate future power
grabs by keeping the agency's statutory authority as vague as possible.
If there is "no place for the courts" to assess the legality of
disease-control edicts, as Fauci maintains, it follows that the Supreme
Court erred not only by blocking the CDC's nationwide eviction
moratorium but even by taking up the issue. Evidently, it also should
have stayed out of the dispute over the federal vaccination-or-testing
requirement for private employees, which it likewise deemed illegal.
Fauci's impatience with legal niceties has been apparent for some time.
"The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in
doing things the way they want to do it," he complained in a 2020
interview with BBC Radio 4, "as opposed to in response to federal
mandates, which are relatively rarely given."
The result, Fauci explained, was "a considerable disparity, with states
doing things differently in a nonconsistent way." That "disparity," he
averred, "has been a major weakness in our response" to the pandemic.
The "leeway" that bothers Fauci is required by the Constitution, which
leaves states with the primary responsibility for addressing public
health threats under a broad "police power" that the federal government
was never given. So his beef is not simply with the way COVID-19 policy
happened to play out in the United States; it is an objection to our
system of government.
Biden Begins Using Clemency To Ameliorate the Damage Done by the
Draconian Drug Policies He Long Supported
That system limits the federal government to specifically enumerated
powers, which do not include a general mandate to fight communicable
diseases or protect public health. At the same time, the Constitution
and Supreme Court precedent prohibit states as well as the federal
government from violating certain rights, even during a public health
emergency.
That explains why courts heard and sometimes upheld objections to
COVID-19 control policies that restricted religious gatherings, the
right to keep and bear arms, and access to abortion. If Fauci is right
that such policies should be left to government experts, all of those
interventions were misbegotten, regardless of their legal merits.
"It's a bad precedent when decisions about public health issues are made
by people [who] don't have experience or expertise in public health,"
Fauci told Fox News on Saturday. Americans should be thankful that the
courts do not share his confusion.
The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.S. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like
http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://reason.com/2022/04/27/anthony-fauci-thinks-scientific-expertise-trumps-the-rule-of-law
Anthony Fauci Thinks Scientific Expertise Trumps the Rule of Law
The president’s COVID-19 adviser embodies the arrogance of technocrats
who are sure they know what’s best for us.
JACOB SULLUM | 4.27.2022 12:01 AM
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint
friendly versionCopy page URL
Anthony-Fauci-1-11-22
(CNP/AdMedia/Sipa/Newscom)
Anthony Fauci was "surprised and disappointed" by last week's ruling
against the mask mandate for travelers issued by the Centers for Disease >>> Control and Prevention (CDC). "This is a CDC issue," President Joe
Biden's top medical adviser told CNN. "It should not have been a court
issue."
Fauci, who objects to federalism as well as judicial review, embodies
the mild-mannered arrogance of technocrats who assume their scientific
expertise trumps the rule of law. Because they believe they know what is >>> best for us, they are dismayed by any attempt to limit their influence
or restrain their power.
Fauci did vaguely criticize the substance of U.S. District Judge Kathryn >>> Kimball Mizelle's decision, calling her reasoning "not sound" and "not
particularly firm." But his main point was that she had no business
determining whether the CDC had complied with the law, because courts
should not be "getting involved in things that are unequivocally public
health decisions."
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki concurred: "Public health
decisions shouldn't be made by the courts. They should be made by public >>> health experts."
But Mizelle did not make a public health decision; she made a legal
decision, based on her understanding of the relevant statutes. Contrary
to Psaki's implication, courts are not only authorized but obligated to
make such decisions, as she surely would have conceded had Mizelle ruled >>> in the CDC's favor.
The Justice Department is appealing Mizelle's ruling, but it did not
seek a stay that would have restored the mask requirement while the case >>> is pending. Although that omission may seem puzzling given the CDC's
claim that the mandate "remains necessary for the public health," it
makes sense if the administration's goal is to facilitate future power
grabs by keeping the agency's statutory authority as vague as possible.
If there is "no place for the courts" to assess the legality of
disease-control edicts, as Fauci maintains, it follows that the Supreme
Court erred not only by blocking the CDC's nationwide eviction
moratorium but even by taking up the issue. Evidently, it also should
have stayed out of the dispute over the federal vaccination-or-testing
requirement for private employees, which it likewise deemed illegal.
Fauci's impatience with legal niceties has been apparent for some time.
"The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in
doing things the way they want to do it," he complained in a 2020
interview with BBC Radio 4, "as opposed to in response to federal
mandates, which are relatively rarely given."
The result, Fauci explained, was "a considerable disparity, with states
doing things differently in a nonconsistent way." That "disparity," he
averred, "has been a major weakness in our response" to the pandemic.
The "leeway" that bothers Fauci is required by the Constitution, which
leaves states with the primary responsibility for addressing public
health threats under a broad "police power" that the federal government
was never given. So his beef is not simply with the way COVID-19 policy
happened to play out in the United States; it is an objection to our
system of government.
Biden Begins Using Clemency To Ameliorate the Damage Done by the
Draconian Drug Policies He Long Supported
That system limits the federal government to specifically enumerated
powers, which do not include a general mandate to fight communicable
diseases or protect public health. At the same time, the Constitution
and Supreme Court precedent prohibit states as well as the federal
government from violating certain rights, even during a public health
emergency.
That explains why courts heard and sometimes upheld objections to
COVID-19 control policies that restricted religious gatherings, the
right to keep and bear arms, and access to abortion. If Fauci is right
that such policies should be left to government experts, all of those
interventions were misbegotten, regardless of their legal merits.
"It's a bad precedent when decisions about public health issues are made >>> by people [who] don't have experience or expertise in public health,"
Fauci told Fox News on Saturday. Americans should be thankful that the
courts do not share his confusion.
The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.S. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like
http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current COVID
vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:29:59 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,627 |