Appreciate this timely write-up; I'll need to read it once or twice more as my initial parsing was via mobile, but my key concern: can the vile beasts possibly overturn her/the Judge's ruling based on a 'technicality'?
Apr 24, 2022·edited Apr 24, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
I converted that nasty PDF into a searchable version. These conversions aren't perfect but at least you can search. Often these are created by someone running a document through a scanner that can't do OCR – very annoying.
Great post Brian. It was quite obvious that the CDC was being used as a workaround to skirt typical legislative procedures. The same was happening with using OSHA to enforce vaccine mandates.
This reminds me of an article from Quillette a few years ago in which a lawyer was describing the process used to get takes from lawyers to rebut Trump. It was describing how news outlets would just reach out to whatever lawyer they could just to provide some take so they could post in the media. I'm not surprised that some writer from Vox took this hot take to make this idea partisan.
Brian, thanks for enabling "monthly" donations. I'm going to set up a monthly donation (and eliminate one of my Patreons. I get more bang for the buck on your substack!) 😜
Excellent analysis. Brian will make an excellent judge someday. It's unlikely either Mizelle or Millhiser believes in the Mystical Orb, but those who do should consider that all decisions involve tradeoffs, and we seldom have clear choices. So all decisions are necessarily compromises, always subject to reconsideration, from our menu choices, to elections, to SCOTUS. It's useful to remember that even the supremes, nine wise and highly educated people considering the exact same facts and the exact same body of "laws," always have a split decision.
The most fundamental error we make is assuming that one more reg or bill or decision will make everything clear. They never do, so we foolishly add one more bill, one more reg, one more adjudication, hoping this time will be different and clarity will prevail. Too many laws, too many regs, too many regulators believing they know what's best for everyone else. A society of competent, self reliant individuals would eliminate the laws and regs and bureaucrats that administer them. But that's not our society. It's the one we should hope for.
Appreciate this timely write-up; I'll need to read it once or twice more as my initial parsing was via mobile, but my key concern: can the vile beasts possibly overturn her/the Judge's ruling based on a 'technicality'?
I converted that nasty PDF into a searchable version. These conversions aren't perfect but at least you can search. Often these are created by someone running a document through a scanner that can't do OCR – very annoying.
Great post Brian. It was quite obvious that the CDC was being used as a workaround to skirt typical legislative procedures. The same was happening with using OSHA to enforce vaccine mandates.
This reminds me of an article from Quillette a few years ago in which a lawyer was describing the process used to get takes from lawyers to rebut Trump. It was describing how news outlets would just reach out to whatever lawyer they could just to provide some take so they could post in the media. I'm not surprised that some writer from Vox took this hot take to make this idea partisan.
Excellent and thorough analysis, thank you! 👍🏼
Brian, thanks for enabling "monthly" donations. I'm going to set up a monthly donation (and eliminate one of my Patreons. I get more bang for the buck on your substack!) 😜
Makin' a donation just for the diagrams alone. 😉
(p.s., unfortunate typo: cliticizing)
Excellent analysis. Brian will make an excellent judge someday. It's unlikely either Mizelle or Millhiser believes in the Mystical Orb, but those who do should consider that all decisions involve tradeoffs, and we seldom have clear choices. So all decisions are necessarily compromises, always subject to reconsideration, from our menu choices, to elections, to SCOTUS. It's useful to remember that even the supremes, nine wise and highly educated people considering the exact same facts and the exact same body of "laws," always have a split decision.
The most fundamental error we make is assuming that one more reg or bill or decision will make everything clear. They never do, so we foolishly add one more bill, one more reg, one more adjudication, hoping this time will be different and clarity will prevail. Too many laws, too many regs, too many regulators believing they know what's best for everyone else. A society of competent, self reliant individuals would eliminate the laws and regs and bureaucrats that administer them. But that's not our society. It's the one we should hope for.
Wow, I need to read through this a few times, very informative, sourced, interesting. Thanks for taking the time and effort.