Or, in the alternative, he has finally revealed himself as another aspiring totalitarian progressive. Either way, the doctor is a dangerous, arrogant, power-abusing fool, and it’s way past time to get rid of him.
Last week Dr. Fauci—may he go down in U.S. history as one of the nation’s true villains—said:
“We are concerned about … the courts getting involved in things that are unequivocally a public health decision… This is a CDC issue, should not have been a court issue… It was perfectly logical.”
Yes, he really said this. No, I wouldn’t kid you, he really did. He is Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the United States. He has been director of the NIAID since 1984. From 1983 to 2002, Fauci was one of the world’s most frequently cited scientists across all scientific journals. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
And yet he either doesn’t understand the Constitution of the United States, or wants to overturn it in favor of a dictatorship of experts. Ironically, he epitomizes exactly what is wrong with “experts” in so many fields. They tend to be single-minded and locked into tunnel vision. They drift toward favoring processes that favor an “ends justify the means” philosophy. They are ultimately untrustworthy and unethical.
Fauci’s statement marks him as one of the worst of this breed. His statement echoes democrats and progressives who have resorted to ad hominem attacks and deliberate obfuscation to criticize the ruling by US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle that the CDC exceeded its authority and violated the law when it decreed that passengers had to wear masks while flying or taking public transit, because the CDC exceeded its authority and violated the law.
“The CDC has the capability, through a large number of trained epidemiologists, scientists, to be able to make projections and make recommendations,” the White House’s mask-on/mask-off/ mask-optional/ wait, wahat day is it, a mask day or a non-mask day? medical adviser told CBS News.“Far more than a judge with no experience in public health,”
Again, reading Fauci’s statements raises the Hanlon’s Razor issue that bedevils this blog so often: Is he stupid, or is he diabolical? The judge’s expertise in public health or science literally doesn’t matter. Again: it…doesn’t…matter. His quote is exactly like a racist teacher complaining that the Supreme Court Justices who handed down Brown v. Board of Education didn’t have advanced degrees in education.
Judge Mizelle accepted (argendo!) the contention that masks can limit the transmission of the Wuhan virus, but pointed out that the question was the authority of the CDC to make such a decision unilaterally. It had made the regulation without allowing the public to be heard on “a regulation that would constrain their choices and actions via threats of civil and criminal penalties,” as the law requires when agencies issue sweeping restrictions. Mizelle concluded that the CDC’s approach was “trust us we’re the government.”
How stupid does the Biden Administration think we are?
As Professor Turley wrote in his analysis, “The Constitution requires more than a shrug to prevent an agency like the CDC from becoming a government unto itself.” Every law and regulation in the U.S. is subject to judicial review. Fauci echoes the attitude of Democrats, in matters from climate change policy to illegal immigration to gun control, to racial spoils, that law and individual rights should never stand in the way of what the great and good progressive elite has decided in the greater good, but thanks to the Founders (Thank you thank you thank you all!) they can’t get away with it, until, at least, they pack the Supreme Court.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States…”
Somebody read this to Fauci, please. There’s no exception listed for “except when self-deifying experts don’t want it to.”
Congress established the CDC by law in 1946, when it also established the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)That explicitly states which departments and agencies are subject to judicial review under the Act. The CDC is not an excepted agency to APA reviews. The masking issue turned on a 1944 statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 264(a), which states,
“The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.”
The law limits the application of the regulations to “inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human being…” Masking is not inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination or destruction of animals or articles, Judge Mizelle ruled. That is the conclusion of an expert in the law, which involves words, not viruses. She is the right kind of expert to make that call.
Furthermore, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the CDC must justify its decisions when challenged in federal court, and it did not meet that requirement
Wrote Judge Mizelle, “Since the CDC did not explain its decision to compromise the effectiveness of its Mandate by including exceptions or its decision to limit those exceptions, the Court cannot conclude that the CDC ‘articulated a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.’ And so, the decision is arbitrary and capricious and due to be ‘set aside’ and remanded to the agency….The Mandate makes no effort to explain why its purposes — prevention of transmission and serious illness — allow for such exceptions [as for those who are “eating, drinking, or taking medication” or someone is “experiencing difficulty breathing” or is “feeling winded,” or persons with disabilities and children under the age of two] Nor why a two-year-old is less likely to transmit COVID-19 than a sixty-two-year-old.”
Writes Robert Romano of the Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation,
It is tyrannical for any federal official to proclaim that his acts are beyond contest[ing] and [challenge]. That’s not accountability. That’s not limited government or the rule of law. This is an agency that thinks it is above the law.
I will add: anyone who tolerates or supports an official who takes the position that “experts” should be able to over-rule the law is an advocate of tyranny, knowingly or naively.