> We have a court system to decide if these decisions fall into the public health crisis prevention.
Wait, is that the argument that the CDC should be given full authority to decide what needs to be done to protect against the disease, or that the courts should supervise not just on whether the action is authorized, but also effective at the stated goal?
Even if the CDC has authority to do what needs to be done to protect against the disease, it doesn't have the authority to do everything that it can stick an anti-Covid label on. It can't, for example, ban the eating of corn on the cob as part of the fight against Covid. Why? Because eating corn on the cob is not a known (or even suspected) to increase Covid transmission.
A court has to care at least a little bit about effectiveness of the measure... doesn't it?
Wait, is that the argument that the CDC should be given full authority to decide what needs to be done to protect against the disease, or that the courts should supervise not just on whether the action is authorized, but also effective at the stated goal?