The judge who tossed mask mandate misunderstood public health law, legal experts say... NPR

[hlthe2b]

This is a very well done piece with an analysis of law professors from that incompetent "judge's" region. They really nailed how ignorant she is. One can only hope the 11 Circuit does even more so on appeal. Worth reading the whole thing at the link.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/04/19/1093641691/mask-mandate-judge-public-health-sanitation

When U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle tossed out the federal government's
transportation mask mandate on Monday, she relied in part on her interpretation of the term "sanitation."

The 10-letter word can be found in the Public Health Service Act, a sprawling 1944 law that gave the federal government certain powers to respond to public health emergencies. --snip--

The administration argued that masks qualified as "sanitation" under the law, but Mizelle disagreed, opting for a much narrower definition of the term that would exclude measures like face coverings. Legal experts say her interpretation missed the mark.

"If one of my students turned in this opinion as their final exam, I don't know if I would agree that they had gotten the analysis correct," said Erin Fuse Brown, a law professor at Georgia State University.

"It reads like someone who had decided the case and then tried to dress it up as legal reasoning without actually doing the legal reasoning," she added.--snip--

Mizelle substituted her own definition of "sanitation," Hodge said, brushing aside a legal norm known as "agency deference" that compels judges to yield to the interpretation of federal agencies when a law's language is unclear.

Mizelle also criticized the agency for not following standard rulemaking procedures before instituting the mandate. Hodge said she misunderstood how the federal government operates during a national public health emergency.

"This is really a serious deviation from not just what we're trying to do to protect the public's health, but a misstatement of federal authority in emergencies to a great degree," Hodge said.

[rurallib]

1. Well, it's not like she will lose her job over it

[hlthe2b]

4. Practically, no. She will remain. But, theoretically, if this kind of incompetent record multiplies

and we had a major Senate majority, she could be impeached and removed.

She can, however be repeatedly humiliated by her peers.

[former9thward]

6. No she can't be impeached.

Federal judges have only been removed when they have been convicted of crimes. That is the real world.

[hlthe2b]

7. There is nothing in constitution that states criminality is ONLY grounds for judicial impeachment

"Good behavior" is not necessarily limited to the definition of mere legal behavior.

Will they impeach? No. Can they? That is a totally different question and the answer is YES.

[former9thward]

12. I try to look at the real world, not theoretical exercises.

I save my clients a lot of money by doing that.

[hlthe2b]

14. Then maybe you should read what I wrote, which makes that clear.

That said, I'd guess you don't take tough cases then, either if you never deviate from what you prejudge to be the outcome.

[scipan]

42. Words matter, especially in the legal world.

But who am I, just a nobody. I thought "can" meant "is able to".

[MichMan]

18. Theoretically Congress could just pass a law specifically requiring masks

That would require a lot less votes than removal of a judge by impeachment.

[hlthe2b]

20. Her impeachment would have nothing to do with addressing the issue of masks. But the wider issue

of removing an incompetent ideologue from the court. And I've already said it won't happen. But, it theoretically could.

She is also subject to disciplinary action based on ethics complaints. Fed Judges may have a lifetime appointment in all practicality, but there are things that can happen.

[stopdiggin]

28. and now we're going with 'ethics complaints?'

on the basis of this ruling? Or are you just furiously windmilling about?

[hlthe2b]

29. I am not saying/have not said ANYTHING will be done to HER beyond criticism.

I am merely stating what the long-term possibilities are for a judge--any Federal judge who presides in a manner that is ideological, rather than based on legal principles and there is little practical response as I've stated from the first. Ethics review is one. Impeachment, however improbable is another. Had you bothered to read my comments--every comment I've made from the first one in this thread it would be clear I think nothing will happen to her now or in the future--except, quite hopefully, and probably a stark loss on appeal. Accumulate enough appeals and it rises above mere embarrassment. That is about all we can hope for. The bad press and blunt comments from the legal community, retired judges, and legal experts in academia are at least a start.

Kindly stop trying to rewrite what I have posted all along. Doing so to me or anyone else on this thread is not merely disingenuous but beneath you. The point in this thread is NOT what will happen to the judge in terms of official disciplinary action--which I have stated from the first, is nothing. The big picture is what will happen to the foremost public health agency for future public health communicable disease emergencies (and others) if this is not reversed on appeal. The stakes are major. This is not some private client (whose case you take on contingency)that one cuts off/dissuades (out of pragmatism and expediency) from pursuing mere monetary gain from a losing civil suit. This is precedence-- illiterately decided-- that can put the American people at risk in future public health emergencies if politics is allowed to rule over the educated intervention from experts.

[stopdiggin]

34. thank you for the lecture on the 'gravity'

of the situation - and at the same time the straightforward admission that the (professional) consequences for the judge in this ruling are virtually nil. I'm still not sure why you would reach for the "ethical complaints' when that was such an obvious non-starter - but I'll grant some kind of good faith benefit of the doubt. But, frankly - the ruling is largely in line with with much that we see as a general thrust from the 'judicial right' - and is not nearly the 'outlier' that is being construed. Expect more, not less, in this general (anti-government, anti-agency) vein from this bench - and others.

[hlthe2b]

35. Your aggressive stance and accusations towards me reframing what I did not say is done.

Everyone can see what I did and did not say throughout this thread and conversely the disingenuous interaction you are having with me. My comments speak for themselves. Your false restatements do as well--for you.

[stopdiggin]

36. I've accused you of nothing but writing what you write -(nt)-

[hlthe2b]

37. All can see clearly that that is not the case

I don't know if you've had issues with someone with a similar screen name as mine or if we've had a disagreement sometime in the past, but whatever the issue, it ends now.

[dsc]

25. She could have fewer cases assigned to her

but that is about all that would happen over incompetence.

[kairos12]

2. This MAGA Judge is 33.

It will be a long and painful ride.

[Bev54]

5. There is a way to get rid of her, if I remember an internal investigation

through one of the appeals courts can be done. I don't know the ins and outs but Garland was, at one time, the leader.

[Bev54]

3. That is a very kind way to say she doesn't know what the fuck she is doing

She is totally unqualified and is simply a Trumper doing what she is expected to do.

[former9thward]

8. The DOJ has not appealed the case.

Given the time limits of the mandate it is unlikely they will so her opinion will stand.

[hlthe2b]

11. They are discussing doing so. It has only been hours since the decision.

CDC and public health emergency policy will face permanent harm if they do not.

[former9thward]

15. It has been two days.

In a case like this you appeal immediately. The airlines and other transportation systems have already gotten rid of the mandate. It is very difficult to reverse that.

[hlthe2b]

17. It is the agency's decision in coordination with DOJ. That certainly DOES take a few days.

Not like being a private attorney--at all.

[hlthe2b]

19. No. The filing is dated 04/18/22 ONE DAY

Case 8:21-cv-01693-KKM-AEP Document 53 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 59 PageID 892

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21636220/047124235804.pdf

[scipan]

44. Nope, they're appealing.

Link to tweet

?t=mLJzxMb-3fBopng1eB8kuw&s

[former9thward]

45. They did not ask for a stay in the appeal.

So they are not really trying to get the mandate restored. Academic exercise.

[gratuitous]

9. "It reads like someone who had decided the case and then . . ."

Uh huh. Following in the reverse-engineering footsteps of the current majority on the Supreme Court. Just as she was chosen to do. In addition to failing to treat with the agency's interpretation of the law, Mizelle substituted her own expertise in place of the expertise of public health officials. I worked for an attorney who won social security benefits time and again for our clients when either the administrative law judge or the federal judge did that.

[not fooled]

27. Yes

"This is really a serious deviation from not just what we're trying to do to protect the public's health, but a misstatement of federal authority in emergencies to a great degree," Hodge said.

That's the point--to trash federal authority in a variety of circumstances. The cons on the SC will rule along those lines later this year. They really are going to burn it down.

[usonian]

10. Ignorance of the law is no excuse

UNLESS YOU'RE A JUDGE.

I expect that pretty soon maga traffic tickets will go straight to SC and be dismissed.

[70sEraVet]

13. How's that saying go -- you have to dance with the one who brung ya.

[Kingofalldems]

16. I wonder if she got a call from Trump?

[BlueIdaho]

24. She doesn't need a phone call from TFG

She’s already had her marching orders delivered to her.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. Alarming. Not that the right's judge's logic is faulty and self-interested,

but that someone bothered to give a reasoned explanation.

[The Magistrate]

22. Ms. Brown Nailed It In One, Ma'am

"It reads like someone who had decided the case and then tried to dress it up as legal reasoning without actually doing the legal reasoning."

[XacerbatedDem]

38. Which sounds almost like the shadow docket at the SC these days.

[JanMichael]

23. Pelican Brief

[dalton99a]

26. Kick

[rockfordfile]

30. A corrupt judge to say the least.

[Emile]

31. I have always wanted to tell a judge, who in the hell are you to judge!

Especially this one!

[Judi Lynn]

32. Found a photo of her with another looney toon conservative:

[XacerbatedDem]

40. From the picture, looks like that's where she got her "feel" for the courts.

[betsuni]

33. But Hillary Clinton was paid for speeches, did emails, and was evil.

People are stupid.

[leftyladyfrommo]

39. Follow the money. These judges don't care about the

law or the constitution.

We may have to find a way around the court system.

[Whiskeytide]

41. Pretty charitable to say she "misunderstood". n/t

[scipan]

43. ABA rated her as unqualified because of a lack of experience.

The American Bar Association (ABA) rated Mizelle "Not Qualified" to serve as a federal trial court judge,[18] noting that "Since her admission to the bar Ms. Mizelle has not tried a case, civil or criminal, as lead or co-counsel."[19] Before her appointment, the nominee had only taken part in two trials — both one-day trials in a state court conducted while she was still in law school.[10] Mizelle had eight years of legal experience at the time of her nomination;[19] the ABA typically requires 12 years to give a nominee a rating of "Qualified". The ABA said Mizelle "has a very keen intellect, a strong work ethic and an impressive resume... her integrity and demeanor are not in question."[20] But, the committee wrote, "These attributes... simply do not compensate for the short time she has actually practiced law and her lack of meaningful trial experience."[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Kimball_Mizelle

She apparently did a LOT of clerking, including for Clarence Thomas.