SYRACUSE POLICE IN AN UNWELCOME SPOTLIGHT, NEW MEANING FOR BUFFALO BILLIONS, AND A JUDGE'S DECISION TO END TRAVEL MASK MANDATE-IS IT CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, BEN BAUGHMAN FROM CAZENOVIA COLLEGE AND LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

A CELLPHONE VIDEO THAT'S GONE VIRAL PUT THE SYRACUSE POLICE IN THE SPOTLIGHT THIS WEEK.

THE VIDEO SHOWED A SYRACUSE OFFICER HOLDING AN 8-YEAR OLD BOY AND PUTTING HIM IN A POLICE CRUISER AFTER THE BOY WAS ACCUSED OF STEALING A BAG OF CHIPS.

THE POLICE DROVE THE BOY HOME AND CALLED HIS FATHER.

BUT THAT VIDEO, WHICH INCLUDED SOME CONTENTIOUS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN ONE OF THE OFFICERS AND THE MAN FILMING, HAS INFLAMED TENSIONS IN SYRACUSE.

HOW SHOULD POLICE HAVE HANDLED THAT SITUATION AND HOW SHOULD THEY RESPOND NOW?

>> THEY HANDLED IT, OVERALL, WELL.

THEY THE CONTACT AND COVER ISSUE, AS FAR AS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE OFFICER, THE OFFICER THAT WAS DEALING WITH THE EIGHT-YEAR-OLD THAT WAS THERE, HE WAS THERE, HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE CHILD HAD COMMITTED A LARCENY, HAD THE BAG OF CHIPS.

HE IS SUPPOSED TO WORRY ABOUT THE CHILD AND NOT INTERACT WITH BYSTANDERS.

SO THE CONTACT OFFICERS WERE THE ONES THAT SHOULD HAVE STEPPED UP AND DEALT WITH THE EYE RATE-- THE IRATE BYSTANDER WHO SAID HE WAS RECORDING IT BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO KILL THE EIGHT-YEAR-OLD WHICH FEEDS INTO WHAT IS OUT THERE IN THE MEDIA.

SO I WILL SAY THAT THAT'S AN AREA THAT THEY CAN IMPROVE UPON, TO REMAIN PROFESSIONAL WITH THE SUBJECT THAT WAS CREATING QUITE A DISTURBANCE.

BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS HANDLED PROPERLY.

THEY DETAINED THE CHILD.

THEY DID NOT PUT HIM IN HANDCUFFS.

THEY TOOK HIM TO THE FATHER.

AND AT THAT POINT, THEY SPOKE WITH THE FATHER AND THE CHILD FOR AT LEAST 10 MINUTES ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THE NEXT ENCOUNTER IS GOING TO BE A POSITIVE ONE.

>> IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME-- >> THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

IT WAS NOT THE FIRST.

THEY KNEW HIM WELL.

AND ACCORDING TO CBS, HE REPORTEDLY STOLE A BIKE AT KNIFE POINT AND HAS A PETITION OUT FOR HIM IN A SEPARATE PETITION.

>> I THINK WHAT THE POLICE DID IN THIS CASE WAS RIGHT.

THEY DIDN'T PUT THE CHILD IN HANDCUFFS, TOOK HIM STRAIGHT TO THE HOUSE.

AND, YES, THEY HAD ALREADY TALKED TO THE FATHER BEFORE.

ONCE THE POLICE VISITED THEIR HOUSE AND APPARENTLY GAVE HIM A BADGE AND SHOWED THE BADGE OUT OF PRIDE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

AND GOOD THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE VIDEOS WERE RELEASED.

THE POLICE CHIEF CAME OUT AND GAVE A STATEMENT AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE COULD SEE WHAT ACTUALLY HAD HAPPENED.

AND I DO AGREE THAT THE POLICE, AS PUBLIC SERVANTS, SHOULD BE UNDER CONSTANT SCRUTINY.

AND IN THIS CASE, UNDER THAT SCRUTINY, IT TURNED OUT THAT THE POLICE DID SOMETHING RIGHT.

AND-- BUT THE CHIEF DID POINT OUT THAT THERE HAS BEEN-- THERE IS MEADE FOR COMMUNITY POLICING AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS BUT THIS IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN AS OF NOW SO THIS MIGHT CREATE SOME CHANGES IN TERMS OF CREATING MORE COMMUNITY MEMBERS COMING UP AND, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH THE POLICE.

>> THE DEPUTY CALLED IT COMMUNITY POLICING 101 THE WAY THEY HANDLED IT.

MAYOR WALSH MADE AN INTERESTING COMMENT, SHOWING THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR ALTERNATIVE RESPONSES.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.

LUKE?

>> FIRST OFF, POLICING IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROFESSION AND THEY'RE UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE AND RISK THEIR LIVES EVERY DAY.

I WANT TO PREFACE MY COMMENTS WITH THAT.

WHEN I THINK OF COMMUNITY POLICING AND HOW THINGS WOULD WORK, WHEN I WATCH THE VIDEOS IN ADDITION TO THE GOOD POINTS THAT WERE MADE, WHY ARE THERE MULTIPLE OFFICERS IN MULTIPLE CARS ROLLING UP ON AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO STOLE A BAG OF CHIPS.

THAT WAS SURPRISING TO ME.

IT DIDN'T SPEAK TO THE POLICIES THE POLICE HAVE TO TRY TO DEESCALATE, TO EVALUATE THE EXTENT OF THE THREAT AND HOW THEY RESPOND.

THE EIGHT-YEAR-OLD BOY WAS NO APPARENT THREAT.

HE WAS PULLED OFF HIS BIKE AND PUT INTO A POLICE CAR.

IF MY EIGHT-YEAR-OLD SON WENT OUT AND STOLE A BAG OF CHIPS, EVEN IF IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME, I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT'S HOW HE WOULD BE TREATED.

I WONDER IF THAT WAS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION AND BEST COMMUNITY POLICING IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE?

>> I HAVE TO DISAGREE A LITTLE BIT, LUKE.

THE POINT THAT YOU ARE MAKING IS THAT YOUR SON WOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED DIFFERENTLY, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

BUT I THINK WE HAVE A TENDENCY IN THIS COUNTRY TO AUTOMATICALLY SEE A CHILD OF A CERTAIN AGE AND ASSUME THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO PLAY A SITUATION: BECAUSE THE FACT ONE OF THE THINGS THE POLICE OFFICER SAYS IS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE BACK OF MY CAR BEFORE CRYING.

THE YOUNG CHILD MAY HAVE BEEN EIGHT, BUT I'M SURE HE SAW THE PHONE.

THESE KIDS ARE SOCIALIZED TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE ON CAMERA.

SO YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION.

I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO IT BUT HAVE YOU TO ASK THE QUESTION.

IF THERE HAD BEEN NO PERSON THERE FILMING INTERACTING WITH THE POLICE, WOULD THE CHILD HAVE BEEN SCREAMING AND HOLLERING QUITE THE WAY HE WAS?

I HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WAS THIS CHILD KIND OF PLAYING TO THE CAMERA?

TO TRY TO GET OUT OF THIS?

THE SECOND THING IS AND WE DON'T LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A TRADITION IN AMERICA AS THE SCARED STRAIGHT TACTIC.

AND MAYBE THIS WAS AN UNIT.

I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHAT WAS IN THE POLICE OFFICER'S HEAD BUT MAYBE ONE OF THE THINGS THE POLICE OFFICER WAS THINKING WAS, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO GET A LITTLE MORE SERIOUS WITH YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE INTERACTED WITH YOU BEFORE AROUND THIS SAME ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, WE TRIED THE FRIENDLY PART.

THIS CHILD ALLEGEDLY WAS PART OF THE SOCCER LEAGUE THAT THE POLICE HAVE.

WE TRIED THE FRIENDLY SORT.

WE TRIED TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH THIS WITH YOU BEFORE.

IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE GETTING THROUGH.

OKAY, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO GET A LITTLE MORE SERIOUS WITH YOU WITHOUT IN ANY WAY HURTING YOU.

SO I DO HAVE TO SORT OF QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY SAY THE POLICE WERE BEING OVERLY AGGRESSIVE WITH THIS CHILD.

>> A COUPLE THINGS JUST REAL QUICK.

THE SWIFT AND CERTAINTY.

THAT'S HUGE FOR DEALING WITH PEOPLE COMMITTING ADDITIONAL CRIMES.

SO IT WAS SWIFT.

AND IT WAS CERTAIN.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE REASON WHY THERE ARE MULTIPLE OFFICERS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE KNOWN THREATS.

THERE WAS AN EYE IRATE BYSTANDER THAT TOOK THE VIDEO THAT WAS ON THE BORDER OF BEING ARRESTED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF THE INVESTIGATION.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL OFFICERS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE OFFICERS.

EACH YEAR WITH THE DEFUNDING POLICE EACH YEAR ARE BEING KILLED AT A HIGHER RATE THAN THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY.

SO ABSOLUTELY THEY HAVE TO BE THERE.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.

ON THE ONE HAND WE HAVE AN ARGUMENT WE SHOULD SCARE A MIDDLE AGED WHITE MAN SHOULD SCARE AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD BLACK BOY INTO BEHAVING BETTER AND ON THE OTHER HAND WE ARE SAYING THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE CONCERNED SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO VIDEO THAT AND EXPRESS THEIR CONCERN.

I CERTAINLY TAKE YOUR POINT THAT THEY SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON BUT THE TWO THINGS DON'T FIT TOGETHER FOR ME.

>> ABSOLUTELY RECORD.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT.

BUT YOU CAN'T BE YELLING AT THE POLICE AND BEING IRATE AND INTERFERING WITH AN INVESTIGATION.

THAT'S THE CONCERN.

WHEN YOU ARE YELLING INCITEFUL THINGS LIKE I'M RECORDING THIS, SO WHEN OR IF YOU KILL THIS CHILD, I'M TRYING TO PROTECT THEM, THAT'S DANGEROUS TO OUR SOCIETY.

>> YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE GEORGE FLOYD SITUATION.

THE PERSON WHO VIDEOTAPED THAT STOOD THERE AND JUST LET THE CAMERA GO AND SHE GOT ALL OF THAT ON TAPE.

THIS SEEMS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE.

THIS FELLOW SEEMED MORE OF ALMOST PARTICIPANT IN THAT ACTION.

>> YOU THINK HE COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED?

IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

YES.

IN NORTH CAROLINA, HE COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR RESIST, OBSTRUCT, DELAY.

IF THERE IS A SIMILAR CHARGE IN NEW YORK WHICH I'M NOT FAMILIAR THAT THERE IS, WHICH IS A MISDEMEANOR IN NORTH CAROLINA, HE WAS OBSTRUCTING AN INVESTIGATION.

HE WAS TAKING THE ATTENTION OF THE OFFICER THAT KNEW THE CHILD THAT WAS OR DEALING WITH THE CHILD AND THE OTHER OFFICERS THAT WE SAW TRY TO EXPLAIN TO HIM, LOOK, HE WAS STEALING SOMETHING.

BUT THEY ALSO HAD THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

AND THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS THAT WE HAVE EVENTS THAT ARE TRAGIC LIKE GEORGE FLOYD THAT TAKES THE ATTENTION OF THE MEDIA AWAY FROM THE 800,000 OFFICERS THAT DO GREAT THINGS EVERY DAY, SAVING AND PROTECTING SOCIETY.

>> AND NOW AS WE'VE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY ON THIS PROGRAM, IT'S WELL ESTABLISHED THAT BUILDING PUBLICLY-FUNDED STADIUMS IS A BAD DEAL FOR THE TAXPAYER.

BUT THAT DIDN'T STOP GOVERNOR HOCHUL FROM CRAFTING THE LARGEST TAXPAYER HANDOUT FOR A NEW STADIUM IN U.S. HISTORY.

SHE AND THE LEGISLATURE HAVE PUT NEW YORKERS ON THE HOOK FOR $600 MILLION DOLLARS, WITH ANOTHER $250 MILLION COMING FROM ERIE COUNTY.

ALL TO KEEP THE TEAM'S BILLIONAIRE OWNERS FROM MOVING THE BILLS TO A BIGGER MARKET.

PERHAPS SOME PUBLIC MONEY IS JUSTIFIED, BUT WHERE IS THE SWEET SPOT BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS IN BUILDING THESE NEW FACILITIES?

>> THERE IS NO SWEET SPOT.

YOU ARE DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T IF YOU ARE THE GOVERNOR.

OF COURSE THE NFL IS A LUCRATIVE INDUSTRY.

THE BILLS OWNER IS INCREDIBLY WEALTHY.

THEY WON'T NEED GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND I'M SURE MY COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU HAVE TO ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT OUT OF THE 32 NFL FRARCH FRANCHISE, THE VALUE OF THE BILLS IS RANKED 32nd AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE STADIUM THEY WANT, THERE IS THE PROBABILITY THAT THEY CAN GO TO ANOTHER MARKET THAT IS LARGER AND MAKE MORE MONEY AND GET MORE MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR NEW STADIUM.

SO I AM SYMPATHETIC TO GOVERNOR HOCHUL AND HER EFFORTS TO TRY TO MAINTAIN A CULTURAL ICON IN UPSTATE NEW YORK FROM BUFFALO TO ALBANY AND THAT'S THE BUFFALO BILLS.

AND I SAY THAT AS A JETS FAN SO I THINK IT'S A NO-WIN SITUATION FOR THE GOVERNOR.

SHE IS GOING TO SAY IT'S A BETTER DEAL THAN LAST TIME.

SHE IS GOING TO TRY TO SPIN IT TO LOOK AS GOOD AS POSSIBLE AND TAKE SOLACE IN THE FACT THAT THOUSANDS OF BILLS FANS ARE HAPPY AND THEY DON'T CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS.

>> AND THE BILLS FANS ARE HAPPY.

ANIRBAN DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT?

>> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, I LOOKED IT UP AND MY RESPONSE HASN'T CHANGED.

TO HIJACK ONE OF OUR DEAR COLLEAGUE'S FAVORITE PHRASE HERE, IT'S A DUMB IDEA TO BASICALLY BANK ROLL BILLIONAIRES AND HAVE NEW YORKERS FOOT THE BILL, TO MAKE A BAD PUN BUT IT IS SOCIALISM FOR BILLIONAIRES.

IT IS A TERRIBLE POLICY IDEAS BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF SPORTS ECONOMISTS FOR OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES HAVE SHOWN THE LARGE STADIUMS, THEY DO NOT CREATE ANY ECONOMIC BENEFIT IF AT ALL.

IT'S ACTUALLY HURTFUL FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES AND SO ON.

AND YOU KNOW, THE RECENT STADIUM WAS BUILT ON PRIVATE EQUITY.

THE RECENT TREND ACTUALLY AFTER THE 2008 RECESSION, HAS BEEN THAT PUBLIC-- MUCH LESS THAN A THIRD OF THE EXPENSES.

>> THAT STADIUM WAS IN LOS ANGELES WHERE THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF USES FOR IT AND OTHER MONEY FOR IT PERHAPS.

BUT NOT IN BUFFALO NEW YORK.

I'M SAYING THAT AS A GIANTS FAN TARA.

>> AND YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT.

PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE STADIUMS, BASICALLY WHEN THERE IS NO GAME, JUST SIT THERE AS A BIG MONOLITH SURROUNDED BY PARKING LOTS.

THE BUSINESSES CONNECTED WITH IT ADJUST THEIR HOURS TO WHEN THE GAME IS GOING ON AND THEN WHEN THERE IS NO GAME OR OTHER EVENT, IT JUST SITS THERE AND MOST OF THESE BIG STADIUMS ONLY HOLD A FEW OTHER PUBLIC EVENTS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY BIG TICKET PRICES FOR.

SO, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SHORT-TERM BENEFIT OR A SMALL BENEFIT TO A SMALL, YOU KNOW, COMP PAIRED TO PEOPLE IN THE CITY, PERCENTAGE OF FANS WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO ABOUT TO THE GAILS.

>> A COUPLE QUICK POINTS.

IT BUILDS REVENUE FOR THE REGION, FOR BUFFALO TO HAVE A STADIUM THERE.

IT IS GOING TO BRING IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN REVENUE WITH PEOPLE STAYING IN HOTELS, EATING OUT IN PLACES AND AS FAR AS HAVING A NEW STADIUM TO HAVE CONCERTS AND OTHER EVENTS, IT'S GOING TO ATTRACT THOSE AS WELL.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE INTANGIBLE IS BUILDING PRIDE AND MORE COHESIVENESS IN THE COMMUNITY FOR BILLS FANS.

>> I'M NOT SURE ECONOMISTS WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON BRINGING IN ALL THE REVENUE.

THE PEOPLE THAT GO TO THE STADIUM TEND TO BE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA ANYWAY.

>> YEAH, I MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAYING TAXES ON ALL THE STUFF THAT THEY BUY, TO PURCHASE, THE STADIUM IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TAXES SO THE REVENUE IS GOING TO BE COMING IN.

NOW IT'S NOT GOING TO COME BACK THE FIRST YEAR OR SECOND YEAR AS A C'MON ECONOMIST I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS IT WOULD TAKE BUT THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO BE IMPROVED BY HAVING THE BILLS THERE.

>> THERE WAS A RECENT STUDY RIGHT ON THE BILLS STADIUM AND IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT'S A NEGATIVE ECONOMIC AND COMPLETE LOSS IN TERMS OF REVENUE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE LOCAL AREA.

>> LONG-TERM.

>> IN THE SHORT AND THE LONG-TERM.

AND THIS HAS BEEN PLANNED OUT FOR MANY, MANY BIG STADIUMS.

AND MOREOVER, THE TREND NOW ACTUALLY IS THAT BECAUSE OF MORE STREAMING AND SO ON, THE PLATFORM IS MOVING AWAY FROM STADIUMS AND, IN FACT THE MOST PROFITABLE ONES ARE SMALL AREA STADIUMS EMBEDDED INTO SHOPPING COMPLEXES.

I WOULD SAY THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, IT SEEMS AS IF THERE IS ANOTHER BILL BENEFITING FROM THIS WHICH IS GOVERNOR'S HUSBAND, WHO IS RUNNING THE DELAWARE NORTH COMPANY.

SO THERE HAS BEEN CHATTER ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

>> POSSIBLE ETHICS ISSUE THERE.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID IT WILL APPEAL A DISTRICT COURT RULING THAT THE CDC LACKS AUTHORITY TO MANDATE MASK ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THE DECISION BY A SINGLE JUDGE HAS NATIONWIDE IMPACT.

WHILE HER REASONING HAS BEEN CRITICIZED AS FLAWED, APPEALING CARRIES BIG RISKS THAT COULD EXTEND BEYOND COVID AND MASKS.

WAS THIS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM BY THE JUDGE?

>> ABSOLUTELY IT WAS.

IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS JUDGE LOCKED FOR, YOU KNOW,-- LOOKED FOR SCRUTINIZED THE CDC'S RATIONALE AND THEIR ACTIONS TO FIND A WAY TO ELIMINATE THE MASK MANDATE AND WE NEED TO BE CLEAR.

THIS WAS A MASK MANDATE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

THAT'S ALL THAT THIS APPLIED TO.

AND PART OF THE REASON THE CDC HAD ASKED TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC MASK MANDATE WAS BECAUSE THERE ARE NEW VARIANTS, SOME OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW, MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN OTHERS.

AND BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT, A PLANE, A TRAIN, YOU ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE IN CLOSE QUARTERS WHERE YOU ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SORT OF GET THE BREATH OF OTHERS AROUND YOU.

AND THERE IS THE FACT THAT THIS EXTENSION WAS SUPPOSED TO END AT THE END OF MAY ANYWAY.

SO REALLY, IF ANYTHING, THE JUDGE HERE COULD HAVE SIMPLY SAID, OKAY, YOU DIDN'T DO THE 30-DAY NOTICE AND COMMENT.

GO BACK AND DO THAT; AT WHICH POINT, COME BACK AND SHOW ME THAT THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS THIS OR , IF YOU CAN'T, THEN THE MANDATE IS OVER.

THIS REALLY WAS NOT NECESSARY IN TERMS OF COMPLETELY STAYING THE MANDATE.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THIS WAS ACTIVISM AND ACTIVIST JUDGE?

>> I THINKED THE DRDZ ENCOURAGED THE D.O.J.

TO APPEAL THIS JUST TO MAINTAIN THEIR INTEGRITY AS AN AGENCY.

THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONJECTURE ABOUT MAYBE POLITICALLY, WHICH IS MY EXPERTISE THAN POLITICS, THAT'S NOT A SMART THING TO DO WITH THE 11TH CIRCUIT BECAUSE IF THEY LOSE THERE, THEY MIGHT LOSE THEIR AUTHORITY DO THIS TYPE OF THING MOVING FORWARD BUT I THINK IT WAS NECESSARY AND POLITICALLY WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AS ALLUDED TO IS FIGHT IT IN COURT AND ULTIMATELY PROBABLY UNDO THE BAN.

IT WILL BECOME MOOT AND THIS ISSUE WILL GO AWAY.

>> THE CDC NEEDS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HELP WITH PANDEMICS.

THEY HAVE TO HAVE THIS AUTHORITY AND WHEN YOU ARE IN TIGHT QUARTERS, BEING TRANSIMPORTANTED ON-- TRANSPORTED ON A PLANE, TO TARA'S POINT, YOU ARE PROBABLY THE MOST DIVERSE LOCATION PEOPLE.

YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING FROM ALL OVER THE PLACE, STUCK IN A VERY SMALL CONFINED SPACE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROTECT EVERYBODY.

>> I AGREEY WITH YOU, IT SHOWED THAT 56% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT MASKING IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT.

24% WERE OPPOSED AND 20% WERE INDIFFERENT.

SO I THINK AS MANY SCHOLARS POINTED OUT, THE JUDGE HAD OPINION ALREADY IN MIND AND WANTED TO KIND OF READ THE LAW TO FIT HER OPINION AND THE STICKING POINT WAS THE WORD SANITATION BECAUSE THE 1944 LAW ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH INSPECTION, FUME GAITION, SANITATION, PEST EXTERMINATION AND SO ON SO THEY CAN STOP DANGEROUS INFECTION AND SHE SAID THE MASK DOES NOT SANITIZE, DOES NOT EITHER PREVENT NOR, YOU KNOW THE DROPLETS FROM SPREADING BUT THAT'S A WEIRD WAY TO INTERPRET THE WORD WHEN THE LAW WAS WRITTEN.

>> SHE FOCUSED ON SANITATION BUT THE LAW SAYS SANITATION AND OTHER MEASURES.

>> THAT WAS BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED.

>> THE CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL MOVEMENT HAS A LONG STANDING GOAL OF REDUCING REGULATION, RIGHT?

THE ABILITY OF AGENCIES LIKE THE CDC TO IMPACT OR REGULATE VARIOUS WHATEVER THE INDUSTRIES IN THAT AREA ARE.

DOES THIS PLAY INTO THAT?

I MEAN IS THIS PART OF MOVING THE BALL FORWARD A YARD OR TWO IN THIS BIGGER GOAL?

OR IS THIS JUST CONFINED TO THIS CASE?

>> I THINK IT IS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE PANDEMIC.

I MEAN THIS DAME OUT OF A SMALL ORGANIZATION THAT HAS BEEN MOUNTING A BUNCH OF LEGAL CHALLENGES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND THE VACCINES AND THESE TYPES OF THINGS THAT CORRESPONDED WITH A REPUBLICAN SENATE AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENCY PUTTING ON THE BENCH A JUDGE AS YOU MENTIONED, SUBSCRIBED TO A CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY OF A MORE LIMITED GOVERNMENT, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO REGULATION.

IT'S THE CONFLUENCE OF BOTH THOSE THINGS.

>> AND THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE IS WAS RATED NOT QUALIFIED BY THE A.B.A., WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT AN ACCREDITING AGENCY.

ANY INSIGHTS ON THE JUDGE?

>> WELL.

>> THE REASON SHE HAD EIGHT YEARS OF JEWISH EXPERIENCE INSTEAD OF 12.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON A.B.A.

SAID SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED OR EXPERIENCED ENOUGH.

AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT BECAUSE THEN WHEN TRUMP SAID THERE WAS A MEXICAN JUDGE AND SO I DON'T WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE.

BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON ON REGULATORY AGENCIES IF IT GOES FORWARD BUT I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SORT OF POINTS THIS OUT WAS HOW CAREFULLY THIS JUDGE PARSED THE WORD SANITATION.

PARSED THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU GIVE NOTICE IN 30 DAYS PUBLIC COMMENT SORT OF IGNORING THE FACT THAT PART OF THE REASON THAT THE CDC DID NOT DO THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING WE'VE GOT THESE NEW VARIANTS.

WE NEED TO GO AHEAD, KEEP PEOPLE WEARING MASKS IN THESE PARTICULAR AREAS BECAUSE WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT PEOPLE.

SO IF THIS HAD NOT BEEN THAT SORT OF CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, I DON'T THINK THIS JUDGE WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT NARROW IN TERMS OF PARSING OUT EVERY LITTLE POSSIBILITY SHE COULD PULL OUT IN ORDER TO BASICALLY SAY NO TO THIS MANDATE.

>> THANKS TARA.

WE ARE GOING TO COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU FOR YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR UPHOLDING A SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DECISION TO DENY SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY S.S.I.

BENEFITS TO PUERTO RICANS.

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED THAT SINCE PUERTO RICANS ARE EXEMPT FROM MOST U.S. TAXES, THEN THEIR EXCLUSION FROM S.S.I.

WAS RATIONAL AND WITHIN CONGRESS' PURVIEW.

BASICALLY THEY ALSO ARGUED THIS MADE SENSE BECAUSE PUERTO RICANS ARE PART OF AN INCORPORATED U.S.

TERRITORY.

IT IS LONG PAST TIME FOR CONGRESS TO ALLOW PUERTO RICANS TO ENJOY ALL THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, BENEFITS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BEING A U.S. CITIZEN.

>> ANIRBAN, YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ATTACK ON THINKING ITSELF.

ITS RECENT ITERATION BEING THE REJECTION OF MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOKS FOR NEXT YEAR'S CURRICULUM CITING RESEARCHESES TO CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE SHOWS NOTHING OF THAT SORT WERE IN THESE TEXTBOOKS.

GIVEN THE RECENT SPATE OF POLICIES FROM THE FREEDOM STATE, ARE WE SEEING THE RISE OF AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN?

THRAN TALIBAN?

>> MY F IN FLORIDA AS WELL.

A FLORIDA BRIDE LACED POT LASAGNA AND BREAD AT ONE OF HER WEDDINGS.

30 TO 40 GUESTS ATTENDED, MULTIPLE OF THEM WERE SENT TO THE HOSPITAL, THOUGHT THEY WERE HAVING HEART ATTACKS.

THOUGHT THEY WERE HIGH OR LACED OR TOOK SOMETHING THEY SHOULD NOT.

THE POLICE DID RECOVER THE LASAGNA AND A PIECE OF BREAD THAT HAD T.H.C.

>> BREAKING NEWS.

THAT JUST IN, MAKING ME HUNGRY.

MY F, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO HAVE U.S.

TERRITORIES GETTING SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME BENEFITS TO U.S. CITIZENS THERE.

BUT NOT OTHERS.

NOT ONLY PUERTO RICO BUT GUAM AND THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLAND ARE EXCLUDED.

CONGRESS NEEDS TO ACT.

>> MY A GOES TO JERSEY CITY MAYOR STEVE PHILLIP AND ALL OTHER LOCAL OFFICIALS WHO IGNORE THE LEGAL GUIDANCE THAT SOME OF THEM ARE BEING GIVEN WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE POLICE TO USE CANNABIS.

THERE ARE ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES TO QUESTION THE POLICE ACTION.

WE DON'T NEED TO ADD ANOTHER ONE.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A TO THE ONONDAGA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM RECENTLY ELIMINATED ALL LATE FINE.

SUCH A POLICY COMES AFTER NEW YORK LIBRARY DECISION TO DO THE SAME LED TO AN OVERWHELMING POSITIVE RESULT IN RETURNING BOOKS AND INCREASING VISITS.

WHERE IS THE KEEP CALM AND GO TO THE LIBRARY T-SHIRT?

>> BEN?

>> MY A GOES TOWARD A RESEARCHER OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY IN ISRAEL THAT HAS FOUND A PLANT-BASED MIX OF A DRUG CAN ELIMINATE 100% OF PANCREATIC CANCER AND IT'S MOVING TOWARDS THE NEXT STEP IN BEING APPROVED BY FDA.

>> AND LUKE, YOUR A.

>> ON THIS EARTH DAY, MY A GOES TO ITHACA NEW YORK WHO LAST FALL BEGAN DECARBONIZING THEIR BUILDINGS AND CUTTING THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT BY 40%.

>> AN A TO ITHACA.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.