RFK Jr. can promote getting measles with impunity, DOJ lawyer tells judge

The startling claim came amid a lawsuit from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

See full article...

 

[lithven]

With all that said.. most of the judiciary is getting pretty sick of this administrations antics and claims... so it doesn't bode well for the administration here.

Sure but what are they going to do about it? Are they going to fine and issue arrest warrants for the leaders of the DOJ or DOH if they don't follow any judicial ruling? I mean that's what would happen for us lowly plebs but something tells me in these cases it will continue to be limited to sternly worded letters and maybe a furrowed brow.

If the judiciary wants to be taken seriously there needs to be consequences and so far I've seen none.

 

[Frosty Grin]

Become ungovernable unreviewable.

 

[asihkaeun]

So what does the law say?
Does the law say that policies must be based on science? Based on consultation with experts? Subject to public comment? It may very well be that the the law that created the position allows total discretion, no matter how misguided. He's a cabinet official, there must be some law or other means (executive order?) that created the originally created the position that may offer some clarity. Surely that was brought up in the discussion before the judge.

Couldn't tell you why you're getting downvoted. The article does state "... the vaccine policy changes—which were not carried out with typical processes and lack supporting scientific evidence—were done improperly and without reasoned decision-making." which implies there is a process, but the nature of that process will be the key.

 

[Uncivil Servant]

So, legally speaking "un-reviewability" is actually a valid argument (but maybe not a good one in this case).

Whether they're correct about that is a different matter, and is for the judge to decide... but it's not a wildly unreasonable argument to make as matter of whether the courts have the authority to intervene in the executive or legislative branches. It's a very particular line of argument that may just not hold up.

You have to understand this within the context of the legal strategy being used here rather than some common meaning of the apparent arrogance of the statement. Sure it sounds bad or "startling" when you phrase it in a headline... but what they're really asserting is that the court has no constitutional right to intervene in this particular executive determination, specifically. That's a much more specific and important question to settle and it's not as sensational as it sounds on its face.

With all that said.. most of the judiciary is getting pretty sick of this administrations antics and claims... so it doesn't bode well for the administration here.

I mean yeah kinda, in the sense that it's a theoretical defense that works in certain hypothetical situations.

The problem is that this is like how you can hypothetically choose to plead not guilty and present an alibi, but if the cops found you standing over a body holding a smoking gun and shouting "I did it, I killed him!" then this may not play out well in court.

Actually, I was thinking of translating this from law to science by suggesting that the attorney is doing the equivalent of claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine, but they can't show it due to "trade secrets".

 

[asihkaeun]

Sure but what are they going to do about it? Are they going to fine and issue arrest warrants for the leaders of the DOJ or DOH if they don't follow any judicial ruling? I mean that's what would happen for us lowly plebs but something tells me in these cases it will continue to be limited to sternly worded letters and maybe a furrowed brow.

If the judiciary wants to be taken seriously there needs to be consequences and so far I've seen none.

The problem is the judiciary just decides the cases.. they don't enforce. That is left, in part, to the executive. Hurray.

 

[icrf]

So what does the law say?
Does the law say that policies must be based on science? Based on consultation with experts? Subject to public comment? It may very well be that the the law that created the position allows total discretion, no matter how misguided. He's a cabinet official, there must be some law or other means (executive order?) that created the originally created the position that may offer some clarity. Surely that was brought up in the discussion before the judge.

I think that's a perfectly valid question. Best we have is the lawyer saying...

"But the lawyer for the groups, James Oh, countered that the vaccine policy changes—which were not carried out with typical processes and lack supporting scientific evidence—were done improperly and without reasoned decision-making."

...which implies that there must be law somewhere that says those things are required. I am also curious about those details.

 

[Resistance]

I really, really REALLY dread the upcoming shitshow in 2028 when he says he is going to run for a 3rd term and everyone else can get over it.

Because we all know it is coming.

I honestly think that is one of the more unlikely constitutional crises that Trump could actually happen, and turn out to be catastrophic in the coming years. In that scenario, Trump will apply to be on the ballot is all states, and the majority of them will reject him, those that accept him will be challenged legally and those that reject him will be challenged legally, SCOTUS will likely rule in a way that precludes Trumps election. As much as it looks like SCOTUS just rubber stamps everything Trump does, that is not an accurate perception of reality, the most notable rejection is the tariffs. And all that's assuming he even gets through the primary process.

What is more likely is:
Not ceding power in 2029.
A constitutional crisis surrounding some executive action, which becomes more likely the more Democrats win in November.
A constitutional crisis surrounding some executive inaction, which becomes more likely the more Democrats win in November.
Election interference.
Disregarding an impeachment and conviction of himself or a member of his administration.

 

[FranzJoseph]

His unfettered powers even allow Kennedy the freedom to recommend, if he chose to do so, that people ditch vaccines and actively expose themselves to infectious diseases, the lawyer argued

You know how you can ditch your layer? Them using the words "Kennedy", "Freedom" et cetera.

Also, it's high time to ditch your lawyer if they spout any such shit. As actively exposing themselves to infectious diseases is almost as harmful as actively exposing themselves to infectious lawyers...

Oh, plus there used to be a really bad joke about lawyers. How many lawyers have you got when a full ship of them capsizes?

 

[Fatesrider]

From what I have read, courts take a very dim view of both civil servants and politicians who claim that their authority makes their policy above review. So I would hazard a guess that this is a very poor starting position for the DoJ officials.

Of course, the judge issuing a ruling and the government actually complying are two vastly different things.

The judge issuing a ruling that the government should do something different is also not even remotely certain.

 

[Resistance]

For some reason "the algorithm" was shoving down Star Trek The Next Generation related info around the episode "The Drumhead" yesterday. And yet, the final bit of that episode when Worf and Picard are chatting rings fairly true today. Yikes.


View: https://youtu.be/CbQvCzWkATA?t=44&si=LYEt-09opkWeTLVz

To anyone who didn't click the link, the final two lines are worth reviewing:

...she or someone like her will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness.

Vigilance Mr. Worf, that is the price we have to continually pay.

 

[rmgoat]

Don't give them ideas. Have you ever heard of chickenpox parties?

Don't give them ideas. Have you ever heard of chickenpox parties?

Nothing like making sure your children will get shingles later in life. Yeah I know there are shingles vaccines, and yes I have had them. But I had already had two bouts of it before they became available. But if the parents infect their kids with their anti-vax nonsense they won't get those vaccines either.

 

[PsychoArs]

He's not going to live that long.

The way you say that with such confidence, I expected a GoFundMe link or something. <Grin>

 

[SirThoreth]

Don't give them ideas. Have you ever heard of chickenpox parties?

Measles parties have already become a thing:

https://meincmagazine.com/health/2025...st-measles-parties-as-outbreak-keeps-growing/

 

[Resistance]

Yeah. That's what "natural immunity" is code for.

Don't worry, they are buying up warehouses by the dozen, in order to, intentionally or otherwise, perform natural immunity experiments.

 

[Fatesrider]

The reason anti-Anus protesters have adopted the weak slogan "No Kings" is that they lack the courage to demand no Gods. That would start a whole new ball game that few have the guts to play. No one outside of academia is much willing to discuss the systems of power as such. We prefer to scapegoat individuals who, however awful, are only symptoms of the underlying disease.

Power is sexy. We adore being pleasured by it, we love crying about being pained by it, and we behave as though dying of it is some flavor of nobly ecstatic obliviation rather than the self indulgent narcissism martyrdom always is.. In the midst of all our moans and screams, we fail to acknowledge that it's we who both create the power to which we're subject and sustain it. Consequently, when we dream of removing the boot from our necks, we do so entirely to imagine wearing it, not of throwing it on the trash heap of history and finding better ways to manage our resources and affairs.

The crypto-fascist regime that currently holds the U.S. in willing thrall and thrill is proof that its core systems are flawed. Its checks and balances against abuse of power are entirely insufficient. The fact that a single madman is damaging the public health in a way that will ultimately kill thousands, perhaps millions, is just one of many examples.

Fundamentally, the flaw isn't with the system.

The system is working as intended.

The flaw is with those who conceived of the system. The system requires that all participants in that system be reasonable, knowledgeable and reasonably informed, since it is the voters who decide who our leaders will be.

And clearly, the human race lacks a majority who are up to the task of reliably making that decision.

Just think of all the folks who are appalled at what's going on, and remember that more people who wanted what's going on voted for it. The WHY'S are simple. On average, humans are fucking stupid.

When you ask the stupid who should lead us, this shit is what you get.

 

[Anton Longshot]

The entire Trump administration thinks they are "above the law". And they will be until people hold them accountable.

Morons.
Don't they know there's only one person "above the law"? It's Steven Seagal.

 

[drawnquart]

laughs in Article II

 

[brightsafflicted]

I have not studied the issue, but I am reasonably sure the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) applies to the vaccination policy decision. The APA, among other things, requires that administrative policy not be decided by "arbitrary and capricious" processes. So the case may turn on whether judge determines the vaccination policy was created by following the necessary steps. As far as being "unreviewable", very few things are unreviewable, and I don't think this is one of them.

 

[Resistance]

Fundamentally, the flaw isn't with the system.

The system is working as intended.

The flaw is with those who conceived of the system. The system requires that all participants in that system be reasonable, knowledgeable and reasonably informed, since it is the voters who decide who our leaders will be.

And clearly, the human race lacks a majority who are up to the task of reliably making that decision.

Just think of all the folks who are appalled at what's going on, and remember that more people who wanted what's going on voted for it. The WHY'S are simple. On average, humans are fucking stupid.

When you ask the stupid who should lead us, this shit is what you get.

Trying to create a system of government is like writing an entire operating system and app suite... that runs on humans. It's fucking hard. The only remotely palatable alternative to democracy I've seen is lottocracy, it's a component of how juries are selected, and it's been tried in policy making situations, including notably to craft climate policy in France, the resulting policy was aggressive and progressive to the point that the will of the body that came up with it was undermined and overridden.

 

[Erbium168]

I really, really REALLY dread the upcoming shitshow in 2028 when he says he is going to run for a 3rd term and everyone else can get over it.

Because we all know it is coming.

He's just announced that Iran was 2 weeks away from a nuclear bomb after illegally ordering the sinking of a noncombatant ship in international waters.
There's two ways to look at that.
One is that he really is announcing that his perception is reality and Americans are just letting him do it for shits and giggles.
The other is that he won't be standing for election in 2028 unless his lawyers can somehow get it ruled that being dead is no bar to being President.

 

[Marakai]

RFK Jr should keep in mind that there is a limit to how much bad publicity by association Imp Aug Don Trumpus will allow. As Noem just found out. All she has to show for here blind loyalty is Mar-a-Lago face and being remembered for, directly or indirectly, having killed a dog, a goat and 2 humans.

Your brainworm may be your downfall!

 

[bunman]

America the fascist dictatorship

 

[Resistance]

America the fascist dictatorship

With that attitude, it becomes an inevitable reality. I for one recommend against preemptive surrender.

 

[ReaderBot]

So what does the law say?
Does the law say that policies must be based on science? Based on consultation with experts? Subject to public comment? It may very well be that the the law that created the position allows total discretion, no matter how misguided. He's a cabinet official, there must be some law or other means (executive order?) that created the originally created the position that may offer some clarity. Surely that was brought up in the discussion before the judge.

All of this anti-vaccine nonsense seems pretty arbitrary and capricious to me.

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/02...ary-and-capricious-standard-mean-in-lawsuits/

 

[Tinkiewinkle]

Watching his physical and cognitive decline accelerate over the last year I'm finding it hard to worry about this. Can we really see him lasting to 2028? He really isn't well.

There's only so far you can carry a man that's falling apart. At this rate they will need Jim Henson's Creature Shop to animate him by 2027.

I think an AI generated hologram of his father’s ghost telling him “Obama was a better president than you” would probably give him the final push we need.

 

[terrydactyl]

Lawyers like Isaac Belfer give the profession a bad reputation. It seems no matter how sleazy your argument may be, somewhere, there's a lawyer who will argue it.

 

[WilDeliver]

Watching his physical and cognitive decline accelerate over the last year I'm finding it hard to worry about this. Can we really see him lasting to 2028? He really isn't well.

There's only so far you can carry a man that's falling apart. At this rate they will need Jim Henson's Creature Shop to animate him by 2027.

I think we're talking Weekend at Bernie's here.

 

[betam4x]

So, legally speaking "un-reviewability" is actually a valid argument (but maybe not a good one in this case).

Whether they're correct about that is a different matter, and is for the judge to decide... but it's not a wildly unreasonable argument to make as matter of whether the courts have the authority to intervene in the executive or legislative branches. It's a very particular line of argument that may just not hold up.

You have to understand this within the context of the legal strategy being used here rather than some common meaning of the apparent arrogance of the statement. Sure it sounds bad or "startling" when you phrase it in a headline... but what they're really asserting is that the court has no constitutional right to intervene in this particular executive determination, specifically. That's a much more specific and important question to settle and it's not as sensational as it sounds on its face.

With all that said.. most of the judiciary is getting pretty sick of this administrations antics and claims... so it doesn't bode well for the administration here.

Lucky for most of us, Trump has already set the stage for this. Kennedy will probably feel the heat. The runaround regarding the supreme court tariff's ruling and trump trying to work around it will definitely matter here, and I bet the judge is aware of that nonsense.

Sorry, I have optimism. I've been following the courts, even the supreme court, throughout this nonsense, and the message, even from conservatives, is that they are sick of this bullshit. I suspect they'll put up with a little more, and then the clap back will get real.

If I had to guess, I'd say Trump's attempt to run for a third term will be a start of the clap back.

Courts need to feel like they power, regardless of politics. If they believe they are losing that power, they will push to stop that from happening.

 

[pnellesen]

I really, really REALLY dread the upcoming shitshow in 2028 when he says he is going to run for a 3rd term and everyone else can get over it.

Because we all know it is coming.

"Help us, cholesterol. You're our only hope"

 

[mikeschr]

Sure. Back before the vaccine. If it was spreading amongst kids in a group it was almost a certainty that they would all get it. And spread it to siblings. So many parents would actively do this. I get it.

But now we have a vaccine. So this is stupid. Well at least ignorant. I try and use the two terms correctly. As the saying goes, "You can't fix stupid."

I grew up before the vaccine and I remember that it was believed it was better to get chickenpox as a child than to get it as an adult, so the parties seemed to make some sense at the time, before the vaccine.

Strangely, the CDC website still recommends getting the vaccine and warns against having chickenpox parties. For now.

 

[Steve austin]

So, legally speaking "un-reviewability" is actually a valid argument (but maybe not a good one in this case).

Whether they're correct about that is a different matter, and is for the judge to decide... but it's not a wildly unreasonable argument to make as matter of whether the courts have the authority to intervene in the executive or legislative branches. It's a very particular line of argument that may just not hold up.

You have to understand this within the context of the legal strategy being used here rather than some common meaning of the apparent arrogance of the statement. Sure it sounds bad or "startling" when you phrase it in a headline... but what they're really asserting is that the court has no constitutional right to intervene in this particular executive determination, specifically. That's a much more specific and important question to settle and it's not as sensational as it sounds on its face.

With all that said.. most of the judiciary is getting pretty sick of this administrations antics and claims... so it doesn't bode well for the administration here.

I’m not sure that the courts are accepting that anything not clearly and purely political is unreviewable. With the death of Chevron and the additional of “major questions”, SCOTUS seems to have taken most discretion away from the executive and decided the judiciary can review and apply the discretion themselves, if they choose to. To this point there has been pushback from the districts and circuits, but a lot of rolling over by SCOTOS (I’m sure less so if it was a Democrat). Unclear how they’d feel on this. My guess is that they’d reject the “unreviewable”, but might well not reject the actual decisions.

 

[wastrel]

When power absolutely corrupts...

 

[rochefort]

Sure it sounds bad or "startling" when you phrase it in a headline... but what they're really asserting is that the court has no constitutional right to intervene in this particular executive determination, specifically. That's a much more specific and important question to settle and it's not as sensational as it sounds on its face.

IMO, though IANAL, that it's likely not a constitutional issue, but a statutory one. There are lots of laws regarding how the executive branch conducts its business, and it could well be that RFK jr's conduct violates at least one.

 

[numerobis]

So, legally speaking "un-reviewability" is actually a valid argument (but maybe not a good one in this case).

Whether they're correct about that is a different matter, and is for the judge to decide... but it's not a wildly unreasonable argument to make as matter of whether the courts have the authority to intervene in the executive or legislative branches. It's a very particular line of argument that may just not hold up.

You have to understand this within the context of the legal strategy being used here rather than some common meaning of the apparent arrogance of the statement. Sure it sounds bad or "startling" when you phrase it in a headline... but what they're really asserting is that the court has no constitutional right to intervene in this particular executive determination, specifically. That's a much more specific and important question to settle and it's not as sensational as it sounds on its face.

With all that said.. most of the judiciary is getting pretty sick of this administrations antics and claims... so it doesn't bode well for the administration here.

No.

US courts hold the executive branch to actually following a process for making decisions. Claiming the courts can't review that a reasonable process was followed is, indeed, startling.

Also known as complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Steve austin]

Fundamentally, the flaw isn't with the system.

The system is working as intended.

The flaw is with those who conceived of the system. The system requires that all participants in that system be reasonable, knowledgeable and reasonably informed, since it is the voters who decide who our leaders will be.

And clearly, the human race lacks a majority who are up to the task of reliably making that decision.

Just think of all the folks who are appalled at what's going on, and remember that more people who wanted what's going on voted for it. The WHY'S are simple. On average, humans are fucking stupid.

When you ask the stupid who should lead us, this shit is what you get.

I think the most basic assumption they made is that the leadership in the three branches would act in good faith, and that clearly is a bridge too far for the current crew (and arguably has been to a good extent for decades before, certainly since McConnell or Gingrich).

 

[scrimbul]

From what I have read, courts take a very dim view of both civil servants and politicians who claim that their authority makes their policy above review. So I would hazard a guess that this is a very poor starting position for the DoJ officials.

Of course, the judge issuing a ruling and the government actually complying are two vastly different things.

Personally, the Trump Administration has already set enough precedents that I'm surprised the State of New York hasn't just blown off the SCOTUS ruling pausing them from using a racially adjusted map around the single GOP holding in Manhattan.

Since it was the six conservative justices and SCOTUS' legitimacy has been in question ever since the Douglas ruling for far more than just abortions, going 'yolo, fuck it, if the Trump Administration can tell SCOTUS to pound sand, so can the states'.

e.g. let's get this constitutional crisis started as we already know where it all ends and the strength to actually end it on a positive note wanes the longer too many people keep trying to play by the old rules. Nobody is going to get any political or legal brownie points for waiting for the 2028 elections or respecting an illegitimate SCOTUS.

 

[scrimbul]

typically thats extremely limited in scope to say things like FDA reviews where there's a large lengthy, documented process not these 1-2 meetings where vast amounts of public policy is being overwritten by a committee filled with medically dubious advisors. I'd also mention major questions doctrine but SCOTUS is so selective on that

The 'major questions doctrine' was always a Republican gotcha so at some point there needs to be a formal declaration that doctrine is dead and more specific remedies are needed for the things it covered.

 

[jdearr]

"Supervise vaccine policy indefinitely.”
They don't want to supervise it, they want to validate it. He needs an anti-hypocrite/anti-idiot vaccine.

 

[chaos215bar2]

Disregarding an impeachment and conviction of himself or a member of his administration.

This one at least is pretty straightforward. If Trump tries this, either he'll be removed promptly or we'll have a military coup on our hands. And the second scenario would be vanishingly unlikely unless something changes drastically in the next couple years.