Exactly. Which is why it's imperative that this appeal gets squashed. The CDC is not congress and congress is not allowed to outsource their authority to legislate to the CDC. It is the CDC's job to advise congress and enforce congressional legislation.

Philly is ending its mask mandate a mere 4 days after re-implementing it this past Monday.
Hard to keep track of TheScience© these days.

There is absolutely no study showing that cloth masks do anything. So not even a tiny tiny amount of effectiveness has been conclusively proven. Even Osterholm said from the very beginning there has never been evidence masks do anything for a respiratory virus. He even said that it is plausible that a mask increases air pressure and air flow out the side of the masks thereby increasing the distance a virus would float from an infected individuals face thereby increasing spread. So I don’t think your original premise they work a tiny amount but is it worth it is a valid question. If you watch Vinnay Prada’s he has been calling for high quality randomized trials now for years. The CDC hasn’t taken the time to do anything. That is their job but we have to rely on some study out of Bangladesh because over two years into this debacle and the CDC can’t do their job. The CDC has lost all credibility and I hope this goes to court and the CDC further loses any teeth to enforce anything other than sanitization policy.

I wasn't referring to specific masks, but mask policy in the broad societal context... *some* people wear good masks and use them correctly so there is bound to be some reduction in spread society-wide. There's a reason medical professionals have been using masks in clinical settings for about the last century+.

Trying to pretend that's not the case and make up hypotheticals about masks enhancing spread is counter-productive to a rational debate about the merits of mask policy. I can still call mask mandates as not worth the cost, even if there's a very tiny benefit. You could reduce freeway deaths by banning automobiles or setting the national speed limit at 25mph, but that's not worth it either.

If you read it, then you know it was a split decision, where at least one (probably several more since it's a panel of 15) member found her qualified.

As for the 12 year thing, they put that on all of their reviews. There have been more than a few judges who they found qualified with less than 12 years of experience so that 12 years of experience 'standard' is rather squishy. I can post several of those reviews if you really want to pursue that (I've read more than a couple of the ABA's reviews).

Liberal bias is not a new charge against the ABA, as you can read in this 2019 article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...andyke/601441/
The ABA review process has been in place since Eisenhower, however, due to the left bias shown by the ABA reviews, both W and Trump opted out of the review process. The ABA still did reviews during both Presidencies, but the reviews were ignored by the Executive Branch.

From what I've read about Judge Mizelle's past clerkships, organizations she's a member of, etc is that she is on the very far right of the spectrum. That, I suspect, weighed much more heavily than falling short of 12 years' experience. I have not seen anything questioning her competence until the mask ruling.

From what I've read, and I'm by no means a legal expert on this or anything else, is that the CDC tried to do a lazy shortcut in issuing the mask mandate. They leaned on the Public Health Service Act's authorization to make restrictions for sanitation purposes. There's even a WaPo article stating that the mask rule was a losing legal premise. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...c75_story.html

It is my understanding that the CDC could still enact an airline mask mandate through the proper process of issuing an NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice...king%20process.
The NPRM process requires a public comment period and takes some time, but it would be a faster process than legal appeal. But I suspect they do not want to go that route due to their concern about the anti-science of this mandate and what the comments would be during the public comment period.

It's good to see that some people are still capable of nuanced, well reasoned debate. In my view Rick is one of them as is Paul Bertorelli from AvWeb. I enjoyed this article he wrote:

Masks on airplanes: Right outcome, wrong reason
​​​​​​
https://www.avweb.com/insider/masks-on-airplanes-right-outcome-wrong-reason/

An excerpt:Throughout the pandemic, I periodically pushed reset to assure myself I wasn’t falling into group think on the efficacy of masks. Subsequent reporting convinces me that what was true then is true now: Masks are a weak to moderate mitigation supported by admittedly mixed data, but with a generally positive directionality. I found them slightly inconvenient, but not intrusive and certainly not tyranny. (Look at the photos of Mariupol for an example of that.)

I can fault CDC for overreach in the extent of the mask requirement. Its activation is, to a degree, arbitrary. There’s no hard number of case rates or deaths that says at this point, masks are needed and at this point, they aren’t. It requires data interpretation and risk assessment. But CDC shouldn’t consider itself the sole arbiter of relative risk. Citizens have that right, too, and at some point, there’s a collective sense of being willing to live with some risk. I think we’re at the point now and CDC should have sensed it and reacted sooner. Failing to do so damaged its credibility and makes it all the more difficult to ask the public to go along next time.

And there is certain to be a next time.

I was in LAX yesterday. I'd say half walking around without masks, including myself. No one cares anymore. It's great.

This is getting appealed to the 11th circuit which is overseen by Ginni Thomas, so thats a positive thing. So, its an uphill battle for the DOJ

Fixed it for ya.

What is the reason the medical profession has been wearing masks for a century? To stop the spread of respiratory viruses? Anyway, before Covid I can’t recall seeing a doctor in real life wearing a mask expect on TV. And hypotheticals work both ways, they work a tiny tiny amount vs. they actually might make the situation worse for any number of reasons. They are both totally hypothetical at this point. All we have is Bangladesh and it support my hypothetical more than yours. Good studies are needed to make good policy.