When Tucker Carlson and WaPo agree, you know the CDC has illegally overstepped its authority
By Gary Abernathy
The CDC must be wrong when everyone agrees on it
When Tucker Carlson and The Washington Post editorial board agree on something, it’s cause for serious reflection.
Carlson is the conservative rabble-rousing Fox News host who keeps everyone on high alert over any number of real or perceived government conspiracies. The Post editorial board is considerably more measured in its daily opinions but is, safe to say, decidedly and dependably left-leaning. Carlson and various Post writers often take jabs at each other.
As a reminder, columns that appear in newspapers generally reflect the opinion only of the writer, not the newspaper. But editorials that carry a newspaper’s byline speak for the newspaper as a whole, or at least for the opinion section — far more weighty than one writer’s column. It means a majority on the editorial board has agreed on it. The Post calls such opinions “The Post’s View.”
The subject on Wednesday from both Carlson and the Post focused on the CDC’s decision to extend the moratorium on evictions. Like many Americans, I’ve long wondered how the CDC has the authority to do anything but share information and offer advice, or, more importantly, why anyone would think they were required to follow its mandates. As Carlson pointed out, only Congress can make laws, and the president can issue executive orders under narrow constraints (which all presidents try to make wider).
The CDC gathers information about diseases and then releases guidance about those diseases to the country. The CDC does not make laws in this country. It’s not allowed to. Under the U.S. Constitution, making laws is the exclusive role of Congress. You vote for your senators and congressmen and they decide what the rules are. That’s known as representative democracy. It’s been our system for nearly 250 years. But apparently, it is now over. Rochelle Walensky now makes the laws. Walensky announced today that she has decided to nationalize America’s rental properties, millions and millions of them from Maine to California. Tenants are no longer required to pay their rent.
Americans behind on their rent payments may have cheered when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Tuesday a new eviction moratorium for most of the nation, this one set to last until October… But the CDC’s action was almost certainly illegal… The administration also may succeed in giving many Americans a short reprieve from eviction. But perhaps not as long as advertised — because courts may strike it down before October — and at the expense of the rule of law… If the Trump administration had ignored a direct warning from the Supreme Court, Democrats would rightfully line up to condemn the president. Mr. Biden does not get a pass on the rule of law because his heart is in the right place.
When opinion leaders as disparate as Tucker Carlson and The Washington Post agree that the CDC has overstepped its bounds, it’s a safe bet the CDC has overstepped its bounds. Something needs to happen very soon to rectify this flaunting of the law, a legal conclusion which even President Biden acknowledged earlier in the week before caving to the most progressive voices in his party who staged a campout on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.
Covid has revealed different attitudes on life itself
In my new Washington Post piece, I point out that more experts are agreeing that there’s too much focus on how many covid cases there are in the general population, when we should be focusing on people who are most vulnerable to the worst outcomes. The good news on that front is that 80 percent of people 65 and older have already been fully vaccinated.
I also make this observation:
Among things made clear since covid arrived are the stark differences in attitudes among Americans not only about the pandemic but also about life itself. The ideology ranges from “no government restriction is too much if it saves lives” to “when my time comes, it comes.” It seems there are those who would choose isolation for 50 years if it extended their lives by a week, versus those who would rather live a week without restrictions than exist for 50 additional years with them. No argument, no logic, no science will bridge that gap — a chasm created largely by our personal upbringing, politics and cultures.
You can check it out here. A subscription may be required.
What good is being offended if no one knows it?
Quick thought: Most people recognize that we live in the age of the perpetually offended, with everyone on the lookout for the latest insult, in either words or action.
We are all offended, probably every day, by things people say or do. But most of us don’t call press conferences, send out press releases or jump on social media to announce it. We just soldier on. Then, there are those who must let the world know that they’ve been offended and demand an apology, or even someone’s head on a platter.
It’s like the old philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Likewise, if someone has offended you but but no one knows about it, does it matter that you were offended? It’s an interesting personality difference. It’s important to some people to make sure people know how indignant they are. It’s completely irrelevant to other people who have more important things to do.
Sign up or share this newsletter
Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you!