CDC

Fauci Says CDC Mandates 'Should Not Be a Court Issue'

That's a fundamentally anti-democratic attitude.

|

Anthony Fauci is "surprised and disappointed" with this week's federal court ruling that overturned the mask mandate on planes, trains, and public transportation.

That's not because the president's chief medical advisor disagrees with the substance of Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle's ruling. No: Fauci thinks the problem is that the courts have any power over public health edicts at all.

"Those types of things really are the purview of the [Centers for Disease Control]. This is a public health issue," Fauci told CNN's Kasie Hunt on Thursday. "We are concerned about that—about courts getting involved in things that are unequivocally public health decisions. I mean, this is a CDC issue; it should not be a court issue."

Considering how much of his life he has spent working within or alongside the federal government, Fauci's belief that the CDC ought to exist outside of the constitutional limitations applied to government actions is stunning. This is either a complete misunderstanding of the American system's basic functions or an expression of disdain toward the rule of law.

Fauci says the CDC had a "perfectly logical" plan to review the mask mandate in early May, as it intended to do prior to this week's ruling.

"For a court to come in and interfere in that is really unfortunate. It's unfortunate because it's against public health principles," he told Hunt, adding that "that's no place for the courts to do that. This is a CDC decision."

Here's the thing: Even if a mandate is a good idea, that doesn't mean it falls within the legal authority of the agency that imposed it. That's exactly why a co-equal branch of government is tasked with determining whether the actions of the other two branches are legal.

Or, as Mizelle put it in Tuesday's ruling: "Our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends."

The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that many public health officials don't seem to recognize the limits of their powers or the importance of the rule of law. Fauci has previously criticized other foundational aspects of the American system, such as the state officials' ability to set their own rules regardless of what the federal government might say. That's just another way of expressing the perspective Fauci shared with CNN this week: that the CDC's edicts ought to be absolute.

This sentiment extends far beyond Fauci. As I wrote in a February feature for Reason: "In state after state, public health officials have lined up to defend arbitrary and aggressive pandemic rulemaking against the constraints of the democratic process. In doing so, they've defended both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing a bias toward unilateral power rather than any particular political party."

It's not just public health officials who have held this view. "Public health decisions shouldn't be made by the courts," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters this week. "They should be made by public health experts." Legal commentators such as Slate's Mark Joseph Stern have similarly collapsed the distinction between what may be sensible and what may be legal.

If the CDC or state public health agencies require the legal authority to mandate masks and other pandemic-related behaviors, they should ask Congress and state lawmakers to explicitly grant those powers via legislation. It's been two years! There's been plenty of time for that to happen.

But there was never a serious attempt to do such a thing. The CDC merely claimed powers it never had, and then its defenders whined about the inevitable backlash against that overreach. The same process played out with the CDC's unlawful order banning evictions and the Biden administration's ill-fated attempt to have the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) impose a vaccine mandate on private businesses. And the outcome is the same.

(Also, let's be clear about the effectiveness of the mask mandate in the first place. I've observed widespread noncompliance on public transit in Washington, D.C.—a city where it is not uncommon to see people masked while walking alone outdoors on a sunny day in April 2022. And as anyone who has recently taken a flight can tell you, masking was hardly universal on commercial flights even before the mandate was struck down this week.)

Not getting your way in court is not grounds for discarding the very concept of the rule of law. Neither, for that matter, is a once-in-a-generation pandemic.

NEXT: Business Tax on Freelance Writers Heads to Virginia Supreme Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Surprising absolutely no one.

    Something something why do we keep focusing on Fauci he doesn't have any power something.

    1. Now You can earn Up To from 99000$ A Month! There are no limitations, Be Your Own Boss, (bhu22) it All depends on you And how much you want to earn each day. This is a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn a huge sum of money at home.
      .
      Join this right… https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

    2. The gift that keeps on giving.

      1. I think you spelled grift wrong...

        1. That was so good that I'm stealing it! Hilarious!

        2. me too.... brilliant.

      2. There should be no possibility of challenging the verdicts of the unelected bureaucrats at CDC. How dare some judge check whether the mask mandate is legal and in accordance with the USA constitution? We should all be doing what Fauci says and not even think of disobeying his majesty, the Great Fauci.
        This buffoon is so ridiculous that it hurts. It hurts me even more when I remember that I'm paying Fauci's salary. I hope that president DeSantis will fire him on his first day in the office.

    3. Something something why do we keep focusing on Fauci he doesn't have any power something.

      Yup. If someone were to kill him, it would just be a murder, not an assassination. Just like your average postal or DMV worker.

      1. ifif someonesomeone werewere toto kkill him it would be more like using peroxide to kill a potential infection. Don't confuse fauci with a human being

        1. I can't be sure of the exact problem, but I'm pretty sure you need to either turn the volume down on your speakers, turn the microphone on you keyboard off, or both.

          1. Ocationally when I type in the comment box it stays blank until I hit submit. Then the words appear doubled. I'm using brave on a phone. Anyone else have that problem

            1. The input form is horribly glitchy. They should allow edits up until someone responds.

        2. Anthony Fauci should to the honorable thing and go fuckstart his own head with a 4 gauge punt gun.

          1. That would be far too quick. The little gremlin needs to have a slow and very painful and public death.

            1. I am not comfortable discussing Fauci's killing or execution. That is something that Putin would do. USA should be better than that. Fauci should be fired from his job and that's it.

              1. From a cannon?

                You know, so we don't have an endless stream of grifters and slapped wrists before they move on to corporate connections.

              2. I wouldn't worry - Its just them blowing off steam. You can't believe they would actually sanction such actions. I would call itRhetorical hyperbole
                Although the page I cite appeals to only defamation I think its application here is obvious.
                It may not be the healthiest was to exorcise the negative energy built up from seeing an in-com-poop run health policy and ruin peoples lives, but it is just an outlet.
                I mean ... you could yell at your TV or computer monitor but here in the comments section we like to share.

    4. Almost as many things can be called "public health" as can be called "commerce" or "general welfare" when you forego due process. Tyrants always have an excuse for their tyranny and are then offended by the label.

      1. But it's for your own good!

  2. "Public health decisions shouldn't be made by the courts," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters this week. "They should be made by public health experts."

    Simply define "public health decisions" and "public health experts".

    1. No. Fuck you. Public health decisions should be made by the public.

    2. A public health decision is not being made by the courts. A legal decision is.

      1. The Nuremberg code was a legal decision as well and Fauci has no respect for that either regarding Jab coercion. Even some Librarians have it wrong thinking private businesses are except from the Nuremberg Code and can impose jab mandates/coercion. "Business rights" and "States rights" are not a thing. Only individuals can have rights.

      2. Damn I wish Reason had an upvote system, because this post would get as many as I could give.

      3. What Fauci says is that courts should not have the right to review the legality of CDC decisions. Mask mandates and fashion police are clearly unconstitutional. Fauci says that CDC should have power to enforce such mandates despite them being unconstitutional.

    3. I'm not a biologist, so I'm not in any position to define it.

    4. Fortunately, the judge made a legal decision, not a "public health" one. Problem solved.

    5. Fauci is actually correct that CDC mandates shouldn't be a court issue, because the CDC shouldn't (and doesn't) have the power to mandate our individual health choices.

      Heck, if you ask me or any non-wacky libertarian, they'll say "Why is the government involved in medical care and medical insurance, since no one is initiating harm against anyone? It's up to individuals to protect themselves in a pandemic; we're fighting a virus not an army or criminal, and the government can't protect you from a virus."

      Which is the ongoing problem with Reason; it fails to state what a libertarian point of view is, and instead reads more like MSM news without the obvious bias. The most libertarian comment in this article: "Not getting your way in court is not grounds for discarding the very concept of the rule of law." How about a statement that dealing with viruses, is a role for which private institutions and individuals are responsible, just like government isn't responsible for dealing with the cold virus. We should not give up any freedoms and the prosperity that comes with that freedom, by giving government the responsibility for dealing with that virus.

      After all, look what Fauci funded in Wuhan, and the results of millions dead. That's government dealing with something that's not their responsibility, and they sure are reckless in their research creating viruses. It would have been so much better if government weren't opening Pandora's box, to look for problems to deal with.

  3. >>It's not just public health officials who have held this view.

    tyrants of all stripes hold this view.

    1. Those public health tyrants have always been with us. They never went away.

      The U.S Public Health Service (USPHS) Syphilis Study at Tuskegee was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972. The study was intended to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis. As part of the study, researchers did not collect informed consent from participants and they did not offer treatment, even after it was widely available
      https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html

      They just used blacks as a trial run. This time they came after all of us.

      1. That is the most strained "analogy" I have ever seen.

        1. It may be strained, but it is also the reason a lot black people refused to be vaccinated.

          1. And they are right.
            The jabs were supposed to be safe - they weren't.
            The jabs were supposed to make you immune - they didn't.
            The jabs were to stop you from being infections - they don't.

  4. Fauci's a fundamentally undemocratic fraud who has been terribly wrong about every major health issue for going on 40 years.

    1. You know, he really hasn't got a good track record.

      The response to Aids was a clusterfuck. Somehow both making things worse for the at risk group -- mostly gay men, and iv drug users -- while also strongly encouraging a massive and detrimental social change to typical not-at-risk people.

      It took them 25 years to admit that the heterosexual aids epidemic never happened. The at risk populations rebelled, the not at risk populations were completely freaked out, the magic talisman of the condom was far overemphasized. That's how you end up with non promiscuous hetreosexuals fearing aids while still seeing large increases in herpes, syphilis and gonorrhea.

      Just thinking as I type. Sorry if this seems off topic, but I'm feeling like our highest paid federal employee is a lifelong fucktard.

      1. Don't forget the water fountains in elementary schools. We went without those for a couple of years in the '80's.

        1. Yeah. I saw at the civic center a few weeks ago that the water fountains were at some point in the last two years replaced with stations to fill your own water bottle.

          History rhymes, man.

          That's the problem with the theatrics. You may think you're only calming "the masses" right now but what you're also doing is sowing seeds that will have to be reaped. Fauci is very short-term focused, but has no vision of longer term consequences that his weasel words might bring.

          1. Have enjoyed these comments. So spot on. Fauci is a fraudulent halfwit wannabe tyrant. A pathetic little man who many low information people still pleasure themselves to.

      2. "Somehow both making things worse for the at risk group -- mostly gay men, and iv drug users -- while also strongly encouraging a massive and detrimental social change to typical not-at-risk people."

        Seems like that's his MO. He did the same thing with COVID. Just like with AIDS, he focused on vaccines instead of theraputics that could have saved some lives, started massive country-wide panic that saved no one and ruined lives and livelihoods of people not at risk, and the most at-risk still ended up dying in massive numbers due to terrible public health policy.

        That's not even getting into his complicity in illegal GOF research on bat coronaviruses in Chinese labs with deplorable safety practices...

        How many people does this guy have to kill through his incompetence before he's held accountable?

        1. Has anyone actually heard Fauci ever mention the immune system without referencing a vaccine? For a solid year they should have been talking about diet and exercise, building and reinforcing the immune system yet all you heard about was masking, social distancing, and quarantines. Squashing lab leak investigation and any talk about paying for medical Frankenstein lab shit in a communist country because it wasn't legal to do it here. If he'd been born 40 years earlier, he and Josef Mengele would have been collaborating.

          1. Fauci has a sick God complex. His arrogance is staggering. I think he's worse even than Obama for arrogance.

            Fauci is responsible for millions of COVID deaths world-wide because of his Frankenstein experiments in a shady ChiCom lab, and then his cover-up, and then his incompetent response. If there were any justice in the world, he would hang for his crimes against humanity. Hell, I'll settle for him being personally and professionally destroyed by a GOP Congress after the midterms, so that he can never show his face in public again.

    2. Avoid all alergins! That won't fuck over a generation!

      1. That worked out really well for inner city kids, too.

      2. And the peanut industry.

    3. So, the joe biden of governmental agency purporting to focus on health issues?

  5. He's old so I think he confused the CDC with the CCP.

    1. It's certain he's confused himself with someone who has credibility.

      1. He is 81 and at this point, he is not willing to do an about face because that would look terribly as he exits. He has a “legacy” to defend. Wait 20-30 years like we did with Tuskeegee. He will be the poster child of medicine gone badly

        1. And he's not surgeon general, so they'll likely bury him someplace where you can piss on his grave without fear of being shot.

          1. Ever since Dr C. Everett Koop, it has been downhill from there.

          2. What is your problem?

            1. He has a skeptic's viewpoint and a healthy disrespect for authority versus a reverence for 'specialists' whom have been demonstrated to be dishonest on many occasions? Public officials, especially dishonest and pompous ones, deserve disrespect, not blind obedience. It's an American tradition.

            2. What’s yours?

  6. If you don't want things to be a court issue, do them legally and constitutionally.

    Pretty simple.

    1. Legal and constitutional are different matters. Congress has delegated most of its authority to the executive. So alphabet agencies legally create rules with the power of law and enforce them as well. However I fail to find the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to delegate their legislative power to unelected bureaucrats.

      1. Or the enumerated power that even gave the 'feds' everyone's healthcare authority.

        1. I think it's somewhere in there between the commerce clause and general welfare clause, though at least those are actual clauses, even if massively overused. The Venn diagram of tyranny will generally get you at least 2 out of 3.

          1. There is no such thing as a non-specific "General Welfare" clause.
            It's the taxing clause for the General Welfare of the United States Government. (Not for the States or the People.)

      2. All that aside, even if the delegation part was on the up and up - and I'm not saying it is - there are still rules regarding that how that delegation is supposed to work and that define the limits on that delegation... and they still didn't even follow those. They just did whatever TF they wanted and then complain when they get caught.

        1. That's what "deference" means. Instead of checks and balances the three branches have adopted a policy of deference. Which means don't challenge each other. Do what you want. Wait for the peons to complain and give them a bone now and then.

      3. You're always delegating to some extent; the alternative is to have Congress micromanaging every detail to an impossible extent. But there's perhaps room in between Congress legislating the position of every stop sign in every national park, and allowing OSHA to tell people they can't work unless they stick something into their arm or up their nose.

  7. Checks and balances are so quaint. They're based upon the idea that human beings are fallible. But that's an antiquated idea. Reality is that disinterested experts are infallible because they're disinterested experts. So sit down, shut up, and do as you're told!

    1. If you think Fauci is fallible then you don't believe in science.

      1. Well, duh. He's an expert. You do know what expert means? It means he knows everything to know and he is not at all self interested. Unlike greedy capitalists who seek to keep and accumulate wealth, experts have no such motivation. Once they join government they become angels with no desire to keep and increase their power. That is why the world should be ruled by disinterested experts.

        1. An expert is someone from out of town, carrying a briefcase.

          1. The farther away he lives, the more expertise he has.

            My first employer brought one in from NYC. A real NYC marketing expert who was going to help launch a new product aimed at local tradesmen. Not one damn sale. That's when I learned that the title of "expert" merely means that you have the temerity to assume such a title and act like you know your shit till the check clears or someone dies, whichever comes first.

        2. That's pretty sarcasmic

          1. I have my moments.

        3. When ‘experts’ join the government, just like angels, they no longer have to eat human food, breathe air, or even shit!

      2. He is the science.

        1. He doesn't follow science. Science follows him.

          1. Fauci has discovered the center of the universe. It's himself

            1. Did Colorado's coronavirus death toll really just drop by nearly 300?
              ...
              Coronavirus Death Toll Drops By 5 As State Rethinks Counts

              How many people is Jesus *alleged* to have resurrected?

              1. Well. It was Easter last Sunday....

      3. Haha…Fauci IS science after all

  8. Fauci kind of equals J Edgar Hoover and MacArthur .

    1. I wonder how many people Fauci has blackmailed to keep his worthless job?
      Are you sure you haven't confused Douglas MacArthur with Joe McCarthy?

    2. Except MacArthur actually was right a lot of the time. Especially during the two world wars.

      1. Doesn't matter. He didn't recognize that the Prez is CinC until he was shocked into that by being fired. Not sure he ever believed in civilian control of the military.
        And he and Montgomery are easily the most overrated generals of WW2

        1. Generals like that are still around.

        2. You will have to defend, with citations from from officers and NCOs at the time, and, examples the assertion that MacArthur and Montgomery are 'easily the most overrated generals of WW2. Otherwise, you are, as Sevo likes to say, full of shit. And, I may agree, but your 'it doesn't matter if he was right' is perhaps the most stupid comment I've read here in quite some time.

      2. MacA was all over the place. In some ways he was downright prescient, but in others...

        My college history professor, who thought MacA a great man, always reminded me "he lost 2 out of 3". The Philippines was one thing, but not heeding the intelligence in Korea was unforgivable.

        Sometimes overlooked though is MacArthur's very specific understanding of the Japanese and Japanese culture. Nobody else could have transformed Japan after the war as he did, and part of that is because nobody else would have been accepted as he was. He knew how he would be viewed as the conqueror, he convinced others to leave Hirohito in place, he knew he was in a unique position to oversee rebuilding like a viceroy.

        He did for Japan as the Marshall plan did for Europe, but did it in a very Japanese acceptable way, which is probably the best example I know of his being right when others did not believe. That was another moment of greatness -- Not in his role winning the war, in his role after the fighting was done.

        1. Pomposity can get you a lot of converts among those used to pomposity from an emperor. He had the vibe. My father was one of his aides in Korea but by then, he was so enmeshed in his own propaganda that he wouldn't listen to the people who were charged with giving him intelligence. Dad said the man had 3 large framed photos of himself hung in his office and demanded that a fresh 5-gallon bucket of strawberry ice cream be flown in from Japan every day so that he could have a bowl if he wanted it... so it wasn't leftovers.

        2. Your professor was an idiot. McArthur got fired for pushing the ccp out of Korea then pushing them farther into China.

        3. he convinced others to leave Hirohito in place,

          I understand the utility of keeping living god of their national death cult in place, but it is a terrible injustice that Hirohito didn't die in as much pain as any of the victims in Nanjing. At the very least, MacArthur should have put every Japanese officer above lieutenant into a labor regiment for about a decade and made them dismantle Yasukune by hand and build a monument to their victims in its place.

          -jcr

          1. My understanding, after having spoken with a retired Japanese officer stateside, was that Hirohito was literally retarded, and the show was run by a cabal of generals.

  9. Yes - that's just the way I learned it in school. We have 4 branches of government - legislative, judicial, executive, and the public health branch which has unlimited power to override any or all of the the other 3 branches any time they want for any reason they decide.

    1. Hey! It's *not* "for any reason"! It's for *public health* reasons!

      Seriously, well said.

      1. Like the important public health issue of preventing landlords from collecting rent.

  10. I love how Reason still gives this lawn dwarf the benefit of the doubt but is eager to call Ron DeSantis an authoritarian because he took away Disney's special privileges. Two years of COVID totalitarianism later and Beltway libertarians think that the greatest threat to individual liberty is a business regulation.

    1. That's different! Something something, don't say gay!, something...

    2. It's established law. The SC decided this in 1905.

      1. Negative. The 1905 case concerned a state law, not the actions of a federal agency. Big difference.

      2. The SC also decided that Dred Scott wasn't free. Bad SC rulings can be overturned.

        1. Dred Scott was actually a public health issue, so the courts should not have had any say in it.

          1. Good point!

      3. And we don't have to extrapolate from one very specific case of a vaccine mandate being upheld that public health officials don't have to answer to courts.

    3. Desantis is punishing Florida's largest employer because the CEO exercised his free speech rights to criticize legislation affecting his employees. And you're a libertarian? No, you're a MAGA-GOP shill or an idiot - or both.

      1. Blue states don’t even grant special privileges to businesses in the first place Joe, and cities like NYC and SF have been known to deny permits to businesses that aren’t woke, or not woke enough. So DeSantis is just following the prog playbook here.

        1. He isn't even doing that. Those permits you talk about were denied via executive order or by unelected bureaucrats. This was done by an elected body of legislators following due process and bringing Disney into the world as the rest of Florida businesses. There's a huge difference between abuse of power and exercise of power.

      2. Joe Friedbrain being a good little Dumbocrat shill? What else is new?

        1. Democrats defending Big Business; now, *that’s* new.

      3. I find it endlessly amusing how so many on the 'left' suddenly see a for-profit corporation having literal sovereignty and taxation authority, including exemption from state and local regulation, as a "right" and are outraged that a democratically elected legislature and governor are trying to strip the corporation of those powers, simply because Disney took the correct position on a culture war issue.

        What would your position on the Belgian Free Congo have been if they had lightened up on LGBT folks?

      4. Actually, no he didn't use his personal free speech rights. He made his statement as the CEO, from the CEO's office, using CEO resources, and then pledged corporate resources to make the fight. And no, it doesn't affect his employees [unless you're talking about the bunch that have been recently arrested for various pedo charges]. Everyone will still have jobs.

        1A doesn't mean you can speak without consequences. Enter the political fray and you may suffer politics. The question is whether due process is followed [it is] or whether the law is fairly applied [now it is]. It's not like anything was done via executive order or forcing a DOJ involvement. That would be your guys.

  11. The CDC was interpreting a statute that said it was empowered to protect against communicable diseases. The author forget to include that little thing. But I guess I am quibbling. Maybe it is better to have a partisan judge legislate from the bench no?

    1. I'm still trying to find the place in the Constitution that allows Congress to give legislative power to the executive. Haven't found it.

      1. The SC decided this in 1905. Is that good enough, or you still don't want our public health institutions to have necessary powers to protect citizens?

        Really?

        1. It doesn't become more true by repeating it, Joe.

          1. You noticed too, huh?

            #OneTrickPony

            1. You rang?

              It is clear to me that the CDC has redeemed themselves by not resisting the overturning of title 42. ♥♥♥♥♥♥

              #VirusRiddenOrNotWeWantYou
              #BringYourEntireFamily
              #WeAlsoWelcomeGrandmaZika

              1. and NO, I AM NOT FUCKING OBL.

                I would love for him to do that to me though. ♥♥♥♥♥♥

                #SouthernBordersAreStormyButStillDry

                1. Fiona is once again on fire.

                  1. Thank you for the libertarian act of acknowledging my individuality. ♥♥♥♥♥♥ Because, according to reasons leading profiling expert, Vulgar Batman, I am, in fact, not who I am but instead I am somebody else.

                    I have to emphasize that even an expert like Vulgar Batman, who arguably knows a lot about masks, socks and other underwear in inappropriate places, is allowed to make mistakes like everyone else.

                    Part of the confusion is probably because I am, in fact, almost steamily adjacent to him.

                    However I am
                    #NotAsAdjacentAsIWishToBe

                    In fact I want to meld. Ever seen the Star Trek episode with Lon Suder?

                    Geez, now that I'm thinking about it... I think things are finally starting to pick up some steam at the southern border.

                    #IsItReallyHappening?
                    #YummyYummyYumYum?????

                    1. Ok, OBL.

                    2. Do you really have to be a hopeless idiot like that?

                    3. I am so glad I was here for this. 😀

                    4. I can't recall that episode from memory, but as far as 'melding' remember 'Tuvix'?

                    5. *spits tea*

                      I am also so glad I was here for this.

              2. I think the CDC is getting way too much credit. They only make recommendations, not policy. Yes many of those recommendations are not in the best interest of the public, such as rent moratoriums. However their recommendations fore vaccines are based largely on falsified information from the FDA. Many of the supreme court decisions on vaccine mandates have been based on falsified information from the FDA. They are experimental and therefore all forms of coercion are illegal. The supreme court is judging based on the false precedence that they are proven safe and effective. Corruption in the FDA is the biggest problem we are facing.

                1. Separation of powers is just as divisive as separation of countries.

                  José, the stud with the big brown belly and the highly cultivated, alive region underneath said belly, is not a health risk or contagious in any way. In fact, only his DNA might be contagious. ♥♥♥♥♥♥

                  #ImportJoséToShowAmericansRealMen
                  #AndDontForgetNotToUseACondom

                  1. You’ve done better work, OBL.

                    1. You are a sad, obsolete dipshit beyond redemption.

        2. You're committing the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. As in "The Supreme Court said it was ok, so why do you need to find it in the Constitution?"

          1. "An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument."

            1. I happen to be an authority on everything, therefore I'm right on everything including that I'm an authority on everything.

              1. You too? Small world.

              2. Yeah, but I'm probably older than you, so I've got seniority expert authority on everything. What's more, my wife agrees and she actually DOES know everything.

          2. Exactly. There are certain fundamental human rights that even the constitution could not override, but luckily it addresses them quite well for the most part. The supreme court has had judges without integrity, for this reason not all precedence is good precedence and all precedence can be overturned. One could also argue that a supreme court ruling that contradicts the constitution is invalid.

        3. I think this is one of the toughest questions for you to ask, in that parallel universe over there. I'm referring to "really".

          (For some reason, my comment won't post if I put the quotation at the top. Let's see if this works. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumbedy dumm dumm dumm)

          1. Oh fucking go to hell, please, whatever subpar service you are that is handling my post requests

        4. If they use those powers as they have over the past two years, then hell no. People have rights. There are constitutional limits on what the government can do.
          On what basis do you think anything they did was effective or saved anyone?

    2. "...But I guess I am quibbling..."

      Perhaps, but you ARE a lying pile of lefty shit, so it really doesn't matter.

    3. Does that mean it’s not up to the courts to internet?

    4. The CDC interpreted it and the court said they interpreted it wrong. That isn't judicial legislation that is the fucking job of the federal courts. Just because the CDC interpreted it one way doesn't mean they interpreted it correctly. The courts stated they didn't and thus didn't have the power they granted themselves.

    5. Didn't have to include it. The judge specifically outlined the Congressional directive and how the mask mandate did not fall under that provision. Not too different than the Supreme Court shooting down the eviction moratorium for the same reason.

    6. The best way to protect against communicable diseases is to execute leftists like heraclitus here.
      These are the rules he said he prefers.

      1. Seems valid.

    7. Judges don't legislate. Government agencies don't make law, except the illegal sort that you seem to be in favor of, because of your fear and biases.

  12. Yeah, that's a pretty authoritarian take there.

      1. 'It's not about the feel. We can't control how a person feels about a topic,' Diaz told the Washington Post.

        We can, however, say 'I'm sorry you feel that way.'

      2. At this point, it almost seems like trolling. Like the DOE knew the people who totally *aren't* trying to groom and teach racism to schoolchildren would do something stupid with the right hand without letting the left hand know, and if the DOE just had solid evidence and trotted it out in a taciturn manner, the Twitterati and CRT morons would expose themselves.

        1. It's not like convincing a lefty to act insane is difficult.

          1. What is Libs of TikTok?

    1. haha, when you've lost Jeffy...

      1. Two years into it and he sees the light

        1. Which is exceedingly positive and feels like a blessing to my fundamentally optimistic soul. Im sure in about 3 minutes from now im gonna be given some gargantuan reason to question everything though and I will be forced to return to realism.

          1. Never forget.
            Never forgive.
            Collectivistjeff groomer globalist, and his hiveminded ilk, are why governments got away with outright totalitarianism for 2+ years.

            1. You're right though, this could be my Achilles heel.

              1. They don't change. They're just waiting.

    2. The APA is pretty bad in general and we need significant dismantling of the administrative state. That Congress should have the power has to mean even if they don't want the power.

      1. The issue is, Congress doesn't want to. To do so would increase their work load, and draw negative attention to them for unpopular laws. Additionally, many are statists, and authoritarians, when they are not totalitarian-lite -so having unelected agencies and bureaus create policy that mimics law suits their purpose.

    3. Jeff, somebody has hacked your account. They forgot to get a dig in about the GOP, or 6 Jan. Use the findmyphone app, quick.

  13. Asshole bureaucrat thinks he's above the law, shocking. Why don't you go ahead and appeal the ruling you fucking piece of garbage, please, I'm begging you. I really do want to see how that turns out for you.

    Next year when the new congress impeaches Biden for legally smuggling aliens into the country's interior (and probably a bunch of other crimes and misdemeanors related to his staggering general family corruption), I hope they investigate the shit out of this dickhead as well.

    1. DOJ has already said they're appealing it. Popcorn ready.

      1. Gonna be an awfully short movie.

  14. Fauci Says CDC Mandates 'Should Not Be a Court Issue'

    He's right. The fact that the CDC doesn't have that authority should be self evident.

  15. The SC decided this in 1905.

    1. Which decision? And before your drop Jacobsen, that applies to the states, not the CDC.

      Idiot.

    2. They decided that all CDC mandates are beyond any checks and balances by the judicial system? When was that?

      1. When the Supremes decided that it was ok for Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch. Unfortunately it's settled law. We can't retreat from the Administrative State.

        1. But when did they decide that all delegated powers were automatically constitutional and beyond judicial review?

          1. They're not beyond judicial review. However the burden of proof is on those who challenge the government. The days of checks and balances where the government had the burden of proof of showing what part of the Constitution gives them the power to do something are long gone.

            What I can't figure out is what part of the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to delegate lawmaking to the executive.

            But I guess it doesn't really matter since the original idea of enumerated government powers and unenumerated rights of the people has been turned around. Government can do what it wants unless something says it can't, and we can only do what government says we can do.

            1. So they did not decide that all CDC mandates are beyond any checks and balances by the judicial system.

              That’s good: otherwise the CDC could violate the first amendment on behalf of Congress.

              1. Like by labeling any opinion they disagree with "misinformation" and banning anyone from posting that opinion on social media?

            2. It's going to be a long road clawing it back. All you can do is hope and pray and keep on working towards that goal.

              How much of this century is attempting to roll back the damage of the true, early progressive movement. Not just in our country, but worldwide.

      2. When was that?

        Joe Friday v. Reality, 2022.

    3. When you don't have any good arguments left repeat the same bad one ad infinitum

    4. And the USSC never overturns precedence? Guess Jim Crow is still the law of the land then and states can order forced sterilizations.

      1. "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." - Buck v. Bell, US Supreme Court case from 1927.

        1. Well, I guess that's going to solve the welfare problem, then, given what they've decided about compulsory vaccination...

  16. Fauci, on the other hand, should be a court issue.

    1. Reducing the GS paygrade structure and removing the federal unions from the scene would be a good start.

      1. Now way is Fauci a GS. He's almost certainly SES.

        1. You are very likely correct. Let's add that pay structure to the to be reduced/reformed list.

  17. "Those types of things really are the purview of the [Centers for Disease Control]. This is a public health issue,"

    We are the priests of the temples of syrinx
    Our great computers fill the hollowed halls
    We are the priests of the temples of syrinx
    All the gifts of life are held within these walls

    1. “Fauci’s belief that CDC ought to exist outside of constitutional limitations applied to government institutions is stunning”

      Then you really have no clue, Eric, for how high level bureaucrats think.

    2. +1

    3. always love a Rush reference

      Cities full of hatred ... Fear and lies
      Withered hearts ... And cruel, tormented eyes
      Scheming demons ... Dressed in kingly guise
      Beating down the multitude ... And scoffing at the wise

  18. The Priests:

    Don’t annoy us further
    We have our work to do.
    Just think about the average
    What use have they for you?

  19. He’s right: CDC mandates shouldn’t exist.

  20. Not that I'm advocating violence but I wish somebody would pummel his smug, arrogant face to a pulp.

  21. Fauxi is just another leftist who doesn't think government diktats are "political"

  22. Good gravy, when WILL we be free of this man?

    1. Are you talking about Fauci or Joe Friday?

      1. have they ever been seen in a room together?

        1. Joe Fauci

  23. Little lord Fauci doesn't like to be over ruled. After all his word is the final word because ....the science. The same science the Church used to persuade people into believing the earth was the center of the universe and the sun, moon and all the stars revolved around it.
    The same science that believed man could travel no faster than 60 MPH let alone faster than the speed of sound. The same science that used bleeding to cure illness or hundreds of other once widely held scientific ideas that have been shot down.
    Fauci is no less than that. He is a narcissist and possibly a megalomaniac. He loves the power and attention he gets from the media. He feeds on it. Like a parasite.
    It's time for him to retire and if there were any justice at all he would be arrested and charged with murder.

  24. And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why I hate to be identified with the "nerd" stereotype (an unfortunate side-effect of my occupation).

    Because too many of these immature little stinkers think it's kind of a given that they exist in a law-free bubble where anything but their own interests has no weight.

    How much of a sheltered academic clown do you have to be to come up with a statement like what an executive agency is doing "should not be a court issue".

    These idiots grow up without a concept of interests outside of their own little domains, and they have incomplete understandings of terms like "tradeoff", "negotiation" and "(social) contract". These half-brains need to be put in implementation positions, but not decision-making ones.

    Yeah, btw, I hate nerds, have I mentioned that already?

  25. All I'm gonna say about Fauci is "Raise the Gallows"

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4OBZayWtQ70

    1. This website is such a fucking inconsistent amateurish mess

  26. It's becoming abundantly clear to most people, and the science is increasingly proving, that almost none of the COVID theater actually saved any lives and the costs far outweighed any nominal benefits. As this continues, it is invariable that those that pushed their pseudoscience bullshit, and their scientism sycophants, will fight harder to maintain any relevance.

    People are over COVID, and even another surge is unlikely to impact the majority, who have moved on. When groceries and gas are going through the roof, and once comfortable living wages are now paycheck to paycheck wages, people are going to tune out the doom and gloom forecasters, especially with a disease that almost everyone who is infected survives with minimal to no long term impacts.

    It's been two years, this dead horse can't be beaten any longer. Fauci et al can't accept that fact. The more they scream and complain, the more people tune them out. Here's the big secret people are learning (and some of us knew all along) government doesn't return people to normal, people return people to normal.

    1. "it is invariable that those that pushed their pseudoscience bullshit, and their scientism sycophants, will fight harder to maintain any relevance. "

      What's discouraging to me is that we are only giving them a run for their relevance. They should have to run for much more than that right now.

    2. Two weeks to flatten the curve turned into two years to flatten the economy.
      We are all going to pay for it.
      The devil take Fauci and his minions.

  27. "Our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends."

    Nazi response: Oh, but it should.

    1. ^THIS.... Democrats are literally voiding the USA for Nazism.

  28. "Fauci Says CDC Mandates 'Should Not Be a Court Issue'"

    This is sort of true. On the other hand the CDC's legal authority to impose said mandates is and should very much be a court issue.

    1. The CDC stepped way over the line announcing a moratorium on rent.
      They had NO constitutional power what so ever to do so.

    2. the cdc has no authority to set any public policy. their role is to advise. policy is set by congress.

  29. "Fauci says the CDC had a "perfectly logical" plan to review the mask mandate in early May, as it intended to do prior to this week's ruling."

    Why wait until May. The mandate was set to expire on April 18. The review should have been completed. 26 months is long enough toe have a "perfectly logical" plan. It should have been completed long before now. If they did not have a plan in 26 months, several people at the top of all agencies should resign or be fired.

    1. Why wait until May when it was in effect for 2 years? They waited because they know the answer. There is no way to prove they work, because they don't. No policy like this should ever be implemented if it takes 2 years to figure out if it's worth doing.

  30. And people who torture puppies shouldn't remain free to roam the streets and terrorize people.

  31. all public health institutions lost all credibility when the cdc declared "gun violence" a public health crisis. first there's no such thing as "gun violence" and second it has nothing to do with public health.

    1. The term gun violence is such a sneaky piece of shit. Never heard of car violence. Or knife violence. Or TNT belt violence.

      1. i like your username

      2. Actually “traffic violence” is a thing now among this crowd. They launched a campaign a few years ago called “Vision Zero” to reduce pedestrian traffic deaths, which have actually increased in DC since they started this. Not surprisingly, they are calling for even slower speed limits and draconian fines as well as banning cars entirely from many streets because they are really pushing an anti-car, oh I meant anti-traffic violence agenda.

      3. Yeah, I hate that term too. Or when people talk about the "gun murder" rates between say the UK and the US or whatever, as though the dead person fucking cares how they were murdered?! As though family members just go, "Ah, well, thank fook Harry was taken out with a brick. I'd feel like shite if he'd been shot instead."

    2. The funny thing is, *if* you believed that some sort of "behavioral contagion" causes gun violence, then it wouldn't be specifically limited to harming others with guns and specifically to personal contact peer groups. That is to say, if there is a behavioral contagion that causes gun violence, then a behavioral contagion that caused people to harm themselves and make bad choices generally could much more easily spread via broadcast news or social media or even annual celebratory parades. ike tolerance acceptance adoption of gays LGB LGBTQIA+ LGBTQIA+ Rights would be far more prevalent with a far greater potential for harm. Moreover, if you looked at the number of armed gun interactions that resulted in gun violence relative to the number of LGBTQIA interactions that caused people to believe they're LGBTQIA+ or support LGBTQIA+ rights, the latter is far more clearly the 'social contagion'.

      1. LGB is not what I would consider a social contagion, but the T most definitely is. The reason being is that it forces people to accept things to be true that are not. This is a form of mass psychosis, which is dangerous.

        1. LGB is not what I would consider a social contagion,

          Actually, in the context of Fauci, I was thinking the case of MSM spreading HIV more prevalently, still, relatively stably, almost 40 yrs. after we know about the disease was more of a smoking gun for 'social contagion' than either of the other two.

      2. > some sort of "behavioral contagion" causes gun violence

        Oh, like Hip-Hop?

  32. It should surprise no one that democrats view the law as an impediment to their totalitarian dreams.

  33. Faucci probably also thinks a CDC decision to raise interest rates or apply import tariffs shouldn't be up to the courts.

  34. The courts should have told this asshole to fuck off two years ago. CDC should figure the odds of much public support the next time they cry wolf. Fuck Fauci and the CDC.

    1. I suspect, given how things appear, that the media will present things dishonestly, whatever the issue is will take on partisan aspects again, and the entire whoopdedoo will play out the same way. Further, at least half, if polling is not completely off base, of the population, are still onboard with mask mandates, vaccine mandates. It doesn't matter how often the facts on the ineffectiveness of both are presented to them, they will no accept it.

  35. Fauci has it backwards. Mandates should not be a CDC issue. Somebody needs to put lord Fauci in his place....

  36. Fauci Says CDC Mandates 'Should Not Be a Court Issue'

    --------------------------

    Which is precisely why it most fundamentally is.

  37. I dont have a strong opinion on mask mandates, but vaccine coercion is not a matter for the CDC, its a matter for the Nuremberg Code violation tribunals to come.

  38. So, tell me, who does fuchi think the cdc (and himself) should be subject to?

    That's this fellow's real mentality. He's an authoritarian. He is a sociopath.

  39. "I am science". In a sane rational society this comment would get someone fired from a position like his.

  40. We have an issue. Does anyone know of the funny little lab leak vsv? Seems it somehow magically got some new upgrades. The whole world might be chemically dependent soon. Not even gonna tell ya more than that. I might cause a panic.

    1. Like I'm not now?

  41. 'Public health decisions shouldn't be made by the courts.' Notwithstanding that Roe vs Wade only covers 'health' in a very limited number of instances, it seems that the left-leaning folks, permanently fearful, and un-elected officials need to get on one page. Do courts make decisions concerning laws that may impact the health of members of the public, or is this verboten? The law is in place to provide a neutral standard for all, even if it does occasionally fail at this.

    1. Roe v Wade doesn't cover health...
      It covers PERSONAL HEALTHCARE Choices (i.e. Individual Liberty)!!!

      It's sickening how people can hardly think in terms of Individual Liberty anymore; but instead resort to everyone being Slaves of the State. Gov-Gun worship is off the hooks.

      1. Roe v. Wade grants rights to a particular set of procedures which involve the destruction of another human life, and do not have anything specifically to do with health. The so-called principles of Roe apparently do not have universal application to any other medical procedure. It is just a license to kill in a particular circumstance.

        1. "Roe v. Wade grants rights" ... Isn't it ironic you think government grants rights??? It's also ironic pre Roe v Wade ?life? is UN-savable period without *enslaving* the reproducing LIFE by Gov-Guns

          ...because... it isn't "saving" anything. It's FORCED Reproduction.

          And you might find it interesting that assisted suicide is legal in ten jurisdictions in the US. Apparently Individual Rights ranks right up on top when it comes to full autonomy one's own body... Pro-Life is no more about freedom than the ever growing drug wars.

          1. Roe grants abortion rights because abortion is not a natural right. It is a utilitarian creation of libertines.

            It is not "forced" reproduction as reproduction has already occurred. It is not killing your offspring, which is something tgat is generally illegal.

            1. Apparently reproduction hasn't "already occurred" or there would be *two* separate individuals existing.

              The Roe v Wade court decision written by a Republican Supreme Court actually leaned Pro-Life in that if a *test-tube* offspring could be made the state could legislate against the mother on its behalf.

              And you are entirely incorrect; Abortion is as much of a natural right as clipping one's toe nails. And also a god given right by suicide. Ironically not just a right but a direct cause and effect natural law.

              1. It is Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction by any logical reasoning one wants to throw at it. Only *delusions* say otherwise.

                1. Unless a sexual molestation took place, it is not forced reproduction to get pregnant and subsequently give birth.

                  1. Right... And all fatal vehicle accidents are murder because the person decided to drive instead of walk. The absurdity people will use to justify their Power-Mad tyranny into other people's personal life's.

                    Better start outlining those diets, sleep schedules, personal habits, environmental mandates cause by golly those pregnant women must not be allowed to miscarry their pregnancy by any personal choice.

  42. Nothing screams democracy like a party that can't win the presidency with a majority vote and whose congressional delegation represents vastly fewer people even when in the majority appointing life tenure judges with no accountability and absolute immunity from suit in their job deciding that they, not Congress, control what the CDC is allowed to do.

    You're also being intellectually dishonest in ascribing to Fauci's statement the claim that he means outside the authority of Congress. The more honest reading of his comment is that Congress delegated public health authority to the CDC, therefore the CDC makes public health policy. Nothing suggests he believes the CDC isn't constrained by their Congressional granted authority; it's quite obviously predicated on believing that the CDC was acting within that authority (which they were, regardless of the merits of masking on transit at this point in the pandemic, since the pandemic isn't over; your fellow Reasoners over at Volokh have explained what's legally wrong with Mizelle's ruling).

    You meanwhile seem to think judges appointed as described at the start of this comment overriding Congress on purely political reasons is the democratic thing. Respectfully, you're full of shit.

    1. Nothing screams Nazism (National Socialism) like unlimited democracy... As all Democratic Nazi's preach.

      So is it that you're all too stupid to recognize that the USA isn't a democracy but a Constitutional Union of Republican States - or is it just that you Nazi's want to TAKE-OVER the USA because you're Power-Mad Nazi's on an ego trip???

      Seriously... I wanna know; Is the left just stupidly uneducated or are they just playing stupid to try and conquer the USA??

      1. This is not even "democracy". This is rule by unelected, credentialed bureaucrat, who accepts no check or limit on his authority

  43. Pandemics infect anyone unlucky enough to get the disease. It is the job of our health officials to do what they can to stop the spread of the disease. That would include isolation of individuals or mandating the wearing of masks, etc.
    Such actions cannot be put to a popular vote. They are of necessity authoritarian. And should be implemented over the whining of the you're-not-the-boss-of-me crowd. Civil rights must, of necessity be suspended in such times.

    1. Wow... UR just about as stupid as they come. So while the health officials are pointing Gov-Guns at everyone and keeping them locked up..... Who might I ask is going to feed, shelter and provide resources for these people in YOUR DREAM PRISON?????

      Oh let me guess? The 500 some odd Congressmen are going to pick apples from the miracle tree? Good grief they cannot even vote right during their self-made emergency (thwarted the Cares Act vote).

      UR amazingly retarded and your Gov-Gun worshiping Power-Mad ego trip is pathetic.

    2. Pandemics for which the fatality rate for people w/o comorbidities aged less than 70 is .3%? You are a boot licking fuckwit,

  44. He is a lying liar who lied about lying.

  45. " Dr " Fauci is the modern day Dr. Mengele. He has taken over the " Angel of Death " job since The Aids epidemic. fauci has been spreading death with his involvement in The Wuhan lab and having Beagles faces being eaten by sand fly's.

  46. This isn’t complicated: Fauci is terrified that removing the mandate ~won’t~ cause a spike in hospitalizations. That lack of disease would call into question everything he’s been preaching and show that, at the very least, he’s wrong. Fauci hates being shown to be wrong. It will be interesting to see how he responds to it. Spite is a gimme.

  47. Another takeway from al this is that the government , which has been giving itself more and more power an authority over us, has finally gone too far, even with all the past blundering and noxious stupidity of the bureaucrats, couldn't begin to cause as much damage as this latest government has.
    The economy is near flat line, the debt is monumental and shortages are showing up everywhere. The entire shit show is collapsing before our very eyes and the only thing we hear from the blessed over seers is that more lock downs, more face diapers and more mandates are what's needed.
    Revolutions have been started over less. The last one was over taxation without representation.

  48. The judge was deciding on two questions:

    1. Does the Constitution grant the Congress the authority to impose mask mandates on people using private mass transportation services?

    2. Granting that Congress has such authority, did it authorize the CDC to impose such regulations on its own, and did the CDC follow the proper procedures to implement such mandates?

    As a government entity, the CDC does not, nor should it, have absolute power even over a limited scope of work.

    That is a small "r" republican and federalist value, not a democratic one.

    1. P.S. Fauci is an authoritarian, rule by expert, goon.

  49. This statement from Fauci is stunning and remarkable.

    It is almost an unprocessable idea: that part of the Executive Branch should be given absolute immunity from any scrutiny by the Judicial Branch.

    Fauci's inability to accept even constitutional restrictions on his area of the Government explains all his prior rejections of any challenges to his recommendations or plans.

  50. Caicos is not qualified to make that call. Plus everybody should be indocratic.

  51. Fay I is not qualified to make this call and everyone should be undemocratic.

  52. That's a fundamentally anti-democratic attitude.

    Fauci is a powerful figure in a progressive state; of course, he is going to be anti-democratic.

    More importantly, though, he is also authoritarian.

  53. When I worked at one of the national labs some people would always try to frame their complaints into “safety issues” because a safety issues was a trump card. They didn’t have to reach agreements with their coworkers or convince anyone, management would always act to alleviate their issue.
    If we allow an organization absolute authority over public health issues everything will become a public health issue.

  54. It would not be a court issue if they didn't exceed their authority.

  55. "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
    - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

  56. "This is either a complete misunderstanding of the American system's basic functions or an expression of disdain toward the rule of law."

    Calling it "undemocratic" also reflects a basic misunderstanding of the American system.

    We are a republic, based upon a system of checks and balances. We are not a democracy. Courts are not majority rule. Up until the rise of the bureaucratic state they were the least democratic element of our government.

    But, Boehm is an idiot who does not think mendacity is wrong when the cause is right.

  57. Two years ago, most of us initially liked this guy because we didn't know any better. It didn't take long to see that he is a horrible little man.

    1. Got a mouse in your pocket?

      Because many of us were around back in the early Eighties and remembered how bad he was then.

    1. Hilarious.

      But I’d be reluctant to infer causation here. Seems more likely that the efficacy of the vaccine is nil or something close to it and that the seemingly higher rate of infection amongst the triple-jabbed is due to increased detection in that population. In other words, these are the same people who neurotically swab themselves and report the results every time they get the hint of a sniffle. The unvaxxed don’t voluntarily get tested because they don’t give a shit, so detection in that population is much lower.

      That said, Joe should still be sure to get all his jabs, plus a bunch of extra ones in quick succession just to be on the safe side.

      1. A confluence of factors caused by the "vaccine" - what is being called original antigenic sin (immune system imprints on original spike and keeps producing antigens for that, rather than new variants), the production of non-neutralizing receptors mediating immune cell infections, immunosuppressant conveyance for the mRNA (helps with transgenic rejection) by methyl- and pseudouridine and Covid's own natural evasion methods all come together.

        Remember: "unvaccinated" means EVERYONE not fully boosted. Including 1x and 2x dosers.

  58. i'm curious...why didn't trump can this hack? is fauci fireable by a president?

    fauci has long been a poser in his trade and the originator of the PCR test was loudly on the record to alert us to fauci's incompetence. have a look

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkqQIY7J0fQ

    1. Trump’s failure to handle this asshole probably torpedoed any future presidential run.

      I think what happened is that he didn’t figure out he was being played until Fauci had already been deified, and he didn’t have the balls to sack a demigod. In the words of someone or other, Trump choked.

      1. steve-o, while i'm not a fan of trump i'd never accuse him of being short on balls. trump plowed through advisors and cabinet members like a bum on a baloney sammich. clearly he LOVES firing people. it was his big deal move on the TV show..."you're fired"! and the cobra hand move.. my question is, is fauci's position at the will of the prez?

  59. The arrogance of that man is beyond belief. Someone needs to take him down a notch or two.
    The CDC had no business getting mixed up in business. It's not the job of the CDC to decide who gets paid or who doesn't need to pay for rent nor should it decide that destroying millions of jobs is the best thing for Americans.
    The CDC stepped way over what ever mandate it has and blundered about like a drunken elephant. For the millions of Americans who lost their employment due to the forced lock downs, as much funding for the CDC should be taken away and given to those whose jobs were destroyed by Fauci and gang. Even if it means depleting the CDC down to one or two people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.