The End of Mask Mandates and the Rising Questions of Competency

By Jaycie Doerr, WC Opinions Editor

Federal judge Kathryn Mizelle shook the national stage last week in her ruling that the national mask mandate for travel was unconstitutional.

Her decision came after President Biden’s administration extended the mask mandates on planes and public transportation until May 3. The reasoning is that the CDC did not justify the decision or follow proper rule-making procedures.

In her ruling, Mizelle said, “The mask mandate is best understood not as sanitation, but as an exercise of the CDC’s power to conditionally release individuals to travel despite concerns that they may spread a communicable disease.”

Those opposing the decision are now bringing light to the circumstances of her nomination in 2020 by former President Trump and questioning her qualification for the position. Past federal judges are expected to have at least 12 years of experience in practicing law, where Mizelle only had eight years post law school and had never served as lead or co-counsel on any case prior to her nomination.

While the debate over mandates continues, another debate needs to be had. How is it that an under-qualified and clearly biased judge makes her way into the federal court system? It seems the circumstances of her nomination point directly to the Republican Party. It was former President Trump and a republican controlled Senate.

The checks and balance system failed with this nominee. Instead of ensuring the qualifications of a judge, we gave someone the power of a federal judge without her demonstrating immense knowledge of the law.

Previous articleMath Book Bans: Protecting Students or Political Agenda?
Next articleWomen’s rugby returns to WIU