IN THE COMMENTS: lyssalovelyredhead said:
On a related note, I heard from a lawyer today... that his client, an employer, is being sued by a frequent flying employee, who is alleging forced flying under these conditions constitutes hostile work environment.
पोस्ट्स
८६ टिप्पण्या:
Hm. They're going to have to convince a whole lot of Yale grads that they are right.
Of course it violates the 4th.
Best wishes to them.
Trey
Interesting. I wonder if they've thought about the public policy ramifications: if probable cause is going to be necessary, we must have ethnic and possibly other kinds of profiling.
I am not opposed to that, but I do note that it arguably violates the 14th Amendment.
Seems to me the security problems at airports until they build better airplanes come down to: which kind of constitutional violations do you want to have? Because Americans aren't going to stand for too many plane bombings.
The shot heard around the TSA happens in Boston again. One grope if compliant and two gropes if non-compliant on the midnight airline ride of free Americans.
On a related note, I heard from a lawyer today (on a listserve I'm a member of, I don't personally know this person) that his client, an employer, is being sued by a frequent flying employee, who is alleging forced flying under these conditions constitutes hostile work environment.
No, I'm not kidding.
- Lyssa
"“We honestly don’t have much to say that would be of general interest,” he said. “So much has been said about this issue in the last month, and while we think we have some solid legal theories, they would be terribly boring to anyone but a lawyer.”"
Come on Mr. Harvard Man, give us a try. We promise not to yawn.
New Ham Bait.
"Because Americans aren't going to stand for too many plane bombings."
That's right, we're not.
So maybe Janet Napalitano and Hillary Clinton and Barry Hussein need to get their heads together and learn how to fucking read the TIDE list of known Muslim terrorists.
And hey, here's an idea: Let's not let those fuckers on the aircraft, how 'bout it.
How 'bout we run people's names through the computer before we hand out the ucking visas to every Mohammad and Muhammad and Muhamod who fucking shows up at a US Embassy with a fucking strap-on.
You know, just for shits and giggles.
Fact of the matter is that there is a very small universe of known terrorists and it is trivially easy to keep those people off aircraft. Even if one got on the passengers would do him.
The TSA has captured not a single terrorist, nor uncovered a single blomb. Many bombs get through (both real bombs, and test bombs). Many terrorists have gotten through. The TSA has detected NONE of them.
We needn't give up our Constitutional rights to get safety (and wouldn't even if we were willing to make such a trade).
Janet Napalitano is a fucking loser failure.
Fire. Her. Ass.
And Garage you can go ahead and suck a bag of cocks you fucking Quisling.
Let me mimic the usual right wing points against this:
What do these Harvard Grads have to hide?
Our society is becoming one big lawsuit after another.
They clearly are doing this to get money to pay for their college debts.
There is no such thing as privacy in the Constitution.
Clearly they are with the terrorists.
Boring. Who cares?
Ham -- Having given out visas, I can tell you that we run people's names through the computer in multiple ways.
Also, though I am not a fan of Napolitano, I think any reasonable observer would admit that she is carrying forward what Bush did, and extending it in a strangely more authoritarian and un-American way.
Finally, do you think there might be reasons why people who are almost as smart as you can't keep those people off aircraft in ways that are trivially easy.
Matt -- How do you know the Harvard students are leftists, or that conservatives don't support them?
I nominate your post for dumbest event of attempted political labeling of the day.
The question here seems to be "What, exactly, is a reasonable search in the attendant circumstance?" Furthermore the standard applied to reasonableness would almost assuredly be the "similarly situated, reasonable person" standard.
I have a difficult time believing that a reasonable person would object to fairly intrusive measures given the rather compelling costs of dying because an airplane has been used as a missile by people at war with the United States of America in the very recent past.
That said, anatomically correct images of specific people seems to be more intrusive than a reasonable person would allow. Congress' exemption from TSA searches should be evidence that what the TSA has allowed is unreasonable.
BTW, This beats writing for a legal journal by a mile. Who would rather have a note published in HLR over arguing an important case before a Federal Judge (with likely appeals regardless of the initial outcome)?
Those students are potentially harming their chances of ever being president.
"... do you think there might be reasons why people who are almost as smart as you can't keep those people off aircraft in ways that are trivially easy."
I think the answer is pretty self evident. But let's do a little remedial math:
The TSA has captured 0 terrorists.
The TSA has found 0 bombs.
Many terrorists have gotten through.
Many bombs both real and test have gotten through.
The TSA and its leadership are thus fucking incompetents.
Abdullahmuttab - the Underwear Bomber - on the other hand, boarded his aircraft with the express written permission of Hillary Clinton and the State Department AFTER being placed on the TIDE watch-list of known suspected terrorists and AFTER he was turned in by his father to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Dude, they're not even trying to keep terrorists off planes. They're issuing them fucking visas.
The LGBT crowd Napalitano has gathered up does, however, want to strip search your son and rub your daughter's pre-pubescent vagina.
You know, to see if bin Laden is maybe hiding in their Underroos.
Or something.
@Birkel
An issue I find strangely absent from arguments on either side of the questions is, given the far less intrusive security measures of, say, fifteen years ago, how many deadly aircraft bombings per annum would be likely to happen? A medical expert in radiology (wish I could find the cite) estimated the odds of developing cancer from a single exposure to an airport scanner at one in thirty million. Are your odds of getting killed by a bomber greater or less? People just don't like to put life and death on an actuarial basis, but in making decisions regarding airport security, it's the only reasonable basis.
I just flew cross-country on business (in fact I've just wrapped up today's meetings and will return home tomorrow). My metal knee set off the detectors -- as expected -- but then I received one of the new enhanced pat-downs by a TSA agent instead of being run through the scanners. Don't understand why the pat-down and not the scanners.
I've been patted down before because of traveling with a metal knee, but this was the first time my crotch was touched with the palm or, to be perfectly fair, more the sides of the agent's hands and not his palm. And no wand anymore. That was a strange omission. On previous flights, including flights as recent as September, I would tell the TSA agent that I had a metal knee. He would have me move to a special area with a mat that had footprints painted on it. He would then pass a wand over my body, it would squeal as it passed over my knee (and my zipper, sometimes), and then a fairly superficial pat-down ensued.
This time around the pat-down included the TSA agent running his gloved hands inside the waistband of my underpants, and I had to wait while he ran his gloves through a machine searching for traces of explosive. (So it is absolutely not true that the new enhanced pat-downs would not have caught the "underwear bomber." The agent's gloves would have set off the machine.)
I do still wonder why I received an enhanced pat-down after setting off the metal detector considering that the scanners were nearby and able to be used. I'm kind of glad that I allowed an extra half hour to get through security.
Seven Machos
All in good fun. I posted based on all the different things I have read on Conservative blogs in the past when Bush rolled out various plans to highten airport security.
But I guess now that Obama and Janet Napolitano have rolled these new standards out then it's 'anti-American'. Nice to see you stand up for Civil liberties. Next you'll be joining the ACLU and saying all along you truly believed in their cause.
Until, that is, a Republican is president again and then you'll be parroting the usual right wing talking points about privacy as being overrated.
BTW I was against this kind of invasion of privacy when Bush did it and I'm opposed to it still.
@New H, the obvious counter-argument is that the TSA hasn't caught any terrorists because they have made it easier to do their jihad in other ways (e.g., car bombs in crowded places).
Your argument is on the order of telling me that I don't need my burglar alarms because it has never helped me catch a real burglar. On the other hand, the signs on my mailbox and stickers on my back door and basement door may have helped convince the burglar who struck our area to go break into someone else's house.
@Matt, my response to you is the same complaint I have whenever there is a breakdown in a system (clearly, despite what Napolitano said after the underwear bomber was subdued by passengers, the system did not work). To my mind the underwear bomber does not justify the present enhanced pat-downs, because the TSA and State Department had breakdowns that should be remedied before dumping all over the traveling public.
"... so it is absolutely not true that the new enhanced pat-downs would not have caught the "underwear bomber." The agent's gloves would have set off the machine."
Only if the agent performs this test on every passenger. But since they're wasting time on you - who is not even fathomably suspected - they're NOT spending time on the real terrorists.
I'd harbor a guess that you're not a Muslim and have never been to the Middle East.
That's why the real terrorists get through. They're spending all the time and money searching you, but you present no threat.
Waste. Of. Time. And. Money.
And not for nothing but this argument is specious. The "enhanced pat downs" were introduced to coerce people to go through the expensive new X-ray scanners which don't even attempt to detect explosives.
They're millimeter scanning devices that cannot even penetrate skin; so a bomber could easily insert plastique up her anus and this scanner would never detect it.
The only reason Janet Napalitano introduced this scanning machine into the security system is that the company donates millions of dollars to the Democrat Party and Democrat politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
It's garden variety corruption.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with security and your story demonstrates that convincingly.
Big Mike
I agree with you. I think the new pat down policy is absurd and invasive. I don't fly much.
I think scanning and using a wand ought to be enough. I half expect these screenings to be everywhere we go soon.
@lyssa, you got an Althouse tag! Very well done!
Probably the only way Big Sis and CO will be made to justify this nonsense .
"Your argument is on the order of telling me that I don't need my burglar alarms because it has never helped me catch a real burglar."
But have you actually been robbed?
If you have actually been robbed numerous times and you're still spending all that money on burglar alarms then yes, it's a waste of money.
The TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist ... but MANY have gotten through. It's not like nobody is trying. They are trying. And they are succeeding.
The TSA hasn't found a single bomb ... but MANY have gotten through. They've not stopped a single test bomb and real bombers like Abdullahmuttab have no problem getting waved through security.
The TSA is unable to detect either bombs, or terrorists. And many try and succeed.
But they are capable of feeling your daughter's vagina and they seem to have a very keen interest in doing so - in search of "security threats" strictly.
I'm naturally dubious.
Hey, I got a tag! Never thought I'd see the day!
I'll be making an extra Amazon-via-Althouse order, just for you, Professor. :)
Do these searches pass this balancing test, from McMorris v. Alioto? 567 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1978). Is the search
1. Clearly necessary to secure a vital governmental interest
2. no more intrusive than necessary to protect against the danger to be avoided,
3. but reasonably effective to discover the materials sought, and
4. Conducted for a purpose other than gathering evidence for criminal prosecutions.
Decisions of this court, sensitive to such concerns, have given strict scrutiny to any system used to screen persons entering a public place. The search must be clearly necessary to secure a vital governmental interest, such as protecting sensitive facilities from a real danger of violence. United States v. Davis, supra; United States v. Miles,480 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1973); cf. Collier v. Miller,414 F.Supp. 1357 (S.D.Tex. 1976) (search for alcoholic beverages at college stadium). The search must be limited and no more intrusive than necessary to protect against the danger to be avoided, but nevertheless reasonably effective to discover the materials sought. The inspection must be conducted for a purpose other than the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecutions. To indicate this, we have designated limited searches at sensitive facilities as "administrative searches." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d at 908.
Thanks, Big Mike!
BTW, really interested to hear your experience with the pat down, thanks for sharing it.
My feeling on this issue is I don't have any problem with some government clerk fleetingly seeing a fuzzy picture of my cock and balls. If I have to get a pat down, I want the hot chick doing it.
If I can avoid lines, bombs, and plane crashes, I am happy. If somebody gets to look at my cock, well, that just makes the trip sweeter.
New "Hussein" Ham
I'm not going to defend the TSA but the idea of screenings such as these - as well as burglar alarms - is as a deterent not as a way of outright stopping terrorists of robberies. Sure some terrorists may have gotten through but safety measures such as these attempt to deter them so they don't even try for fear of getting caught.
Most safety measures cannot prevent terrorism or crime.
The TSA hasn't found a single bomb ... but MANY have gotten through. They've not stopped a single test bomb and real bombers like Abdullahmuttab have no problem getting waved through security.
I'm unaware of that; do you have a link to some documentation?
"Do these searches pass this balancing test,"
Since the searches are not conducted on Muslim women in burqas, they are not reasonably effective.
Not one single Muslim woman has had her vagina felt by a TSA agent to see if she was carrying a bomb in her panties under her burqa.
Muslim women are exempt from these searches, because if they are searched (particularly by a male who is not related to them) their husbands are allowed by Sharia law to kill them.
And so the TSA specifically exempts Muslim women from enduring these molestations - for their own safety.
If I have to get a pat down, I want the hot chick doing it.
Not a prayer. Same sex all the way. Andrew Sullivan may start flying coast to coast on a daily basis, though.
I say a guy who looks like this should get a body cavity probe:
http://hlsorgs.com/members/apradhan/
"I'm unaware of that; do you have a link to some documentation?"
TSA Admits Most Bombs Not Detected
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-17-airport-security_N.htm
Wait, it get's better:
Test Bomb Made in US causes
German Terror Alert
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world
/2010/nov/19/fake-bomb-us-germany-terror-alert
Real Terrorist on TIDE Terrorist Watch List Allowed Through Security Sets Bomb Off On Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
"If I have to get a pat down, I want the hot chick doing it."
I intend to come all over the face of the next TSA agent who touches my junk.
And while Jeffrey Redfern does not look terroristical (i.e. not a swarthy Middle Easterner) he is a member of the Federalist Society at HLS.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/
students/orgs/fedsoc/
officers.html
I am opposed to both the scans and the patdowns and hope this and/or other lawsuits prevail.
Muslim women are exempt from these searches
I think this allegation is woefully false. The reason for it makes it even falser.
Stop trolling, Ham.
he is a member of the Federalist Society at HLS
Just as I predicted upthread!
New "Hussein" Ham
How about links to the claim that, "Not one single Muslim woman has had her v*gin* felt by a TSA agent".
From what I read CAIR recommends Muslim women ask to be screened in private not in public. But I've not seen anything that said the TSA will abide by this recommendation. I've seen some right wing sites that speculate that the TSA is considering this recommendation. But that's speculation so far as I can tell.
"I think this allegation is woefully false. "
I have video of Janet Napalitano admitting that Muslim women are not having their vaginas felt by TSA employees.
If I link to it, will you admit that you were wrong?
Matt -- My belief is that Ham is a leftist posing as a conservative to make conservatives look stupid. He's pretty good at it.
Are Catholic white women getting fisted for bombs? If not, what is your point?
"From what I read CAIR recommends Muslim women ask to be screened in private not in public."
No, that is not what CAIR recommends. But don't take my word for it. It was in USA Today:
Airport Scanners Violate Islamic Law, Muslims Say:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-02-11-airport-scanners-muslims_N.htm
"The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has a chapter in Michigan, says it endorses the fatwa."
Airport Scanners Violate Islamic Law, Muslims Say
Therefore,
Muslim women are exempt from these searches
Who can spot the flaw in Ham's "reasoning"?
"My belief is that Ham is a leftist posing as a conservative to make conservatives look stupid."
You have pointedly not answered my question, dude.
I have video of Janet Napalitano saying that Muslim women are not having their vaginas felt to see if they are carrying underwear bombs.
If I link to that video, will you admit that you were wrong?
I have it on very good authority that Irish men are not having Polaroid cameras stuck in their assholes to see if they are carrying rectal bombs.
I also have it on good authority that the traffic cops are not shooting Episcopalian jaywalkers on sight.
Your point, such as it may be, Ham, is laughable. Stop.
"Your point, such as it may be, Ham, is laughable. Stop."
I noticed that you dodged my challenge a third time.
So, even if I link you to video of Janet Napalitano - in her own words and on national television - admitting that the TSA has an official policy of not rubbing the vaginas of Muslim women in order to detect whether or not those Muslim women are carrying underwear bombs in their panties under their burqas ... even if I link you to that video, you will still not admit that you were wrong?
Is that it?
Dude -- I will spell it out for you. The government is not sticking its hand in anyone's vagina. Therefore, it's not sticking its hand in the vaginas of any subgroup of anyone.
Matt ... what happened?
From CAIR's Website:
"Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:
* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.
* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.
* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question (the head scarf), in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down. (Here, CAIR recommends Muslim women refuse to have their vaginas felt to see if they are carrying underwear bombs.)
* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.
* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, (here, CAIR recommends that Muslim women pat themselves down!) including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.
* If you encounter any issues, ask to speak to a supervisor immediately. They are there to assist you."
CAIR provides much advice on how to resist the pat-down and how to remind the TSA agent that you are a Muslim woman and that you can do your own pat-down - in private, so the white infidels can't see that you aren't really being searched by the TSA.
That's all just a fucking farce.
Ham -- Why does it both you that Muslims are trying to assist other Muslims in dealing with an intrusive governmental procedure?
Would it bother you if the Jesuits did this for Catholics, or Jews for other Jews?
Cue the part about Jesuits and Jews not being terrorists, which is historically hilarious.
"I will spell it out for you. "
I'm sure I don't have to spell it out for you ... because by your comments you've shown yourself to be someone who won't even believe his own eyes.
You refuse to even link yourself to video of Janet Napalitano admitting, on national television, that Muslims are exempt from the pussy-feel that American children are being subjected to in order to get on a fucking domestic flight to see their grandmother at Christmas.
Muslims are not being searched.
That's why they're getting bombs on aircraft. With Visas.
Muslims are not being searched.
This is simply not true.
"Why does it both you that Muslims are trying to assist other Muslims in dealing with an intrusive governmental procedure?"
BecBecause uase that's not what CAIR is doing.
CAIR is trading inside information on boarding pass codes.
They're giving other Muslims the secret security information requied to participate with the TSA to move things into a private area so that the white infidels cannot see that you aren't being searched.
That you're conducting your own pat-down.
No Muslim women are having their vaginas felt by any TSA agents to determine whether or not they are carrying underwear bombs.
But 10-year-old American girls are having their vaginas felt by TSA agents.
Now why is that?
Ham -- You are assuming that government personnel must acquiesce or are going to acquiesce to any of the requests from Muslims.
That assumption is ridiculously wrong.
"This is simply not true."
It is true, and I have video of Janet Napalitano admitting that it is true. Admitting that no Muslim women are having their vaginas felt by TSA agents to determine whether or not they are hiding underwear bombs under their burqas and under their hijabs.
And I'll gladly link you to that video if you will first promise me that you will admit that you were wrong once you view the video.
Can you do that?
Can you promise to have an open mind?
Because I don't think you can do that.
I think you're so close-minded on this topic that even if you see and hear Janet Napalitano admitting, in her own words, on national television, that Muslim women are in fact not having their vaginas felt up in public to determine, once and for all, whether they're safe to travel in our country ... even if you see and hear such video, I still think you would never admit that Muslim women are not, in fact, being searched.
Tell me you would admit that you have been had and I'll gladly link you directly to that video and you can make up your own mind.
Ham -- There is no video saying that Muslims are exempt by virtue of their religion from something that everyone else is subjected to. That would be treating Muslims as a preferred class based on their religion, which is obviously and grossly unconstitutional.
You are wrong. Just stop, dude.
Grand Rapids demonstrates how she was raped by TSA agent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FCS79UQCaY
Ham's position seems to be that is for invasive searches for Muslims but against them for everyone else. Such a law would require an amendment to the Constitution that will never occur.
"You are wrong. Just stop, dude."
If I link you to a video in which Janet Napalitano expressly admits that Muslims women are not having their vaginas felt prior to boarding domestic and international flights to determine whether those burqa-covered vaginas conceal hidden underwear bombs ... if I can link you to that video, will you finally admit you were wrong?
Because somehow I don't think you will admit that.
Ever.
No matter what evidence is placed before you.
It seems pretty stupid - if Muslims are hiding bombs in their underwear ... not to feel the vaginas of Muslim women travelling in the United States on aircraft ... seeing as how they could easily be hiding underwear bombs nestled right up next to their clitoris'.
I mean, if you're going to strip-search 3-year-old little boys and terrorize 10-year-old girls by feeling their vaginas, then it would be mighty stupid not to feel the vaginas of Muslim women in burqas to see whether or not they are the real terrorists.
Wouldn't that be stupid? I mean, if it got out that Muslim women were not going to have their vaginas rubbed, then the terrorists might recruit Muslim women to be the next bombers.
Wouldn't they?
Seems like we should be rubbing all Muslim women's vaginas or a terrorist might get through the system.
Perhaps the problem is that you are unclear about the location of the vagina on the female body as it relates to the waist line of pants.
"Perhaps the problem is that you are unclear about the location of the vagina on the female body as it relates to the waist line of pants."
I'd say it lies beneath the burqa. Muslim women in burqa and in hijab may be hiding underwear bombs.
But we'll never know that if we don't institute a policy of vagina rubbing of Muslim women in burqa and hijab.
How else is the TSA going to detect burqa bombs if it is not feeling all the Muslim vagina?
The TSA is clearly feeling the 10-year-old vaginas and clearing them through to be allowed to board the aircraft.
There is YouTube video by the hundreds of terrorized little children across America being felt up by the TSA.
But there is no video whatsoever of Muslim women in burqa having their vaginas rubbed.
Now why is that?
Why should Muslim women be exempt from having their vaginas rubbed to see - once and for all - if they're carrying an underwear bomb?
Surely you're not advocating that Muslim women be exempt?
You agree that Muslim women should have their vaginas rubbed too, don't you?
Or should only the kids be molested?
The law and the practice of the law treats Muslim women no differently than any other women or any other people. That's the whole point of this bizarre new institution.
You can point to no law or no one saying that Muslims are exempt from what everyone else must submit to.
As for video, there's no video of you masturbating furiously in front of your computer. What does that prove?
New "Hussein" Ham said...
And Garage you can go ahead and suck a bag of cocks you fucking Quisling.
He'd love to, but Sullivan always gets there first and he gets the sloppy seconds. If you had asked him to eat a bag of hell, well, then he would understand what tossing Sullivan's salad was all about. Garbage McFuckstick is cool like that.
"As for video ..."
I think I've proven conclusively that you refuse to believe your own eyes and ears.
I can link you to a video in which Janet Napalitano admits ... on national television ... that Muslim women are specifically excluded from having their vaginas rubbed to see whether or not those women are carrying underwear bombs.
But you don't even want to see it.
Do you?
Muslim wopmen are not being subjected to any enhanced pat-downs and this presents an enhanced security risk.
The next underwear bomber will be a Muslim woman, because Janet Napalitano is not rubbing their vaginas.
I think I've proven conclusively that you masturbate furiously in front of your computer to pictures of women in burqas and Janet Napolitano.
"I think I've proven conclusively that you masturbate furiously"
Kind of beside the point.
You just have no intellectual honesty, dude. That's cool ... lots of poseurs on teh intarnets.
I'm not hating on you.
Just using you as my foil.
And you play the part very, very well.
Ham -- Muslims are not being treated differently in some better way than everyone else. The whole point of the law is, bizarrely, to treat everyone in the same invasive way without regard to the likelihood that they are terrorists.
My hope is that you will take your silly beliefs and/or your silly trolling act elsewhere.
"Muslims are not being treated differently in some better way than everyone else."
Yes they are.
They're being provided with private rooms (as long as they don't have "sss" written on their CAIR-approved boarding pass) so they can give themselves patdowns.
That way, the white infidels can't see that the only children having their vaginas felt are the children of Christians.
And Jews.
In this way, Muslim children are getting special treatment.
It has to be unreasonable search and seizure, right? I am no lawyer, but it would seem to me that voluntarily placing themselves in that position by flying in the first place would kind of negate that.
I have wondered if they adopted the Israeli plan if it would be constitutional. They asked a lot of intrusive questions and so far as I know no one has the right to be silent. They also search cars approaching the airport and do criminal back ground checks.
I know we have people on watch lists and no fly lists all ready, but that is not the same thing as routine back ground checks.
I have seen the polls and they have been pretty much consistent in their support of these measures. I wonder if the other passengers would object to flying with people who refuse to go through security?
former law student,
Why even cite a Ninth Circuit opinion? They're overturned more than the pancakes I had for breakfast.
Ham -- Are you really suggesting that no one else may avail themselves of private rooms? Only Muslims?
Forgetting the constitutional implications, which are huge, how do Muslim prove they are Muslim? Do they have a Muslim identity card?
You either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a troll. Either way, go away.
You either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a troll.
This can be an "and" as well as an "or". Sad case, really.
They're overturned more than the pancakes I had for breakfast.
If you eat pancakes once every three years, perhaps. The vast majority of Ninth Circuit casesare not overturned. Consider that the Supreme Court picks the cases it will take, and they're disinclined to pick ones they agree with. The rate of reversals in the Ninth is not the highest of the circuits, but covering 1/5 of the US population as it does, it hears twice as many cases as any other circuit. Thus the raw numbers of reversed cases stand out.
"I am no lawyer, but it would seem to me that voluntarily placing themselves in that position by flying in the first place would kind of negate that."
That is patently false and would be an excuse to negate the 4th Amendment in all sorts of situations if applied as you suggest, i.e. driving a car or walking down the street.
"The vast majority of Ninth Circuit casesare (sic) not overturned."
That is a non sequitur given what I typed.
Sometimes I think you didn't learn much when you were a student.
Oh, and just for extra good measure, former law student...
The Court takes cases after they are ripe. Ripeness usually happens after two or more Circuits come to different conclusions on the same (or similar) matter(s) of law. Thus the idea that courts are "disinclined to pick ones they agree with" is both grammatically poor and wrong in fact.
You amuse me, monkey.
@ Birkel
Congress' exemption from TSA searches should be evidence that what the TSA has allowed is unreasonable.
And there is the evidence that the TSA does indeed profile.
Who would expect a congress critter to be a terrorist?
Why is that?
Profiling.
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
As with all the other laws Congress passes and czars create and exempt themselves from -- it is time for this to stop.
New Bumper Sticker:
Full Body Scans for Congress
It has to be unreasonable search and seizure, right? I am no lawyer, but it would seem to me that voluntarily placing themselves in that position by flying in the first place would kind of negate that.
You mean like just "voluntarily" walking down the street trying to get from one place to another negates your rights and exempts you from unreasonable search and seizure? A lot of people who have fought hard for civil rights for Blacks and other minorities have made the case against just this concept.
You don't give up your rights by just being in a place (traveling) or by just being a certain color, race, or religion.
We also DON'T give up our rights by NOT being a certain race or profile either.
If you think that it is permited for the government to grope you at will and take nude photos of you, merely because you had the temerity (balls) to want to move freely in a public place, what else do you think they should be allowed to do?
What is unreasonable about wanting to move about and travel as an American citizen?
How is it reasonable to randomly, AND thout any probable cause snatch you from your daily activities and strip search you.
What is the reasonable cause to force Grandma to get felt up or your child to be fondled by govenment lackies.
Just how far are you willing to let the government intrude onto our freedoms?
You...maybe a lot.
Me....not so much.
vw: brace brace yourself for a big backlash against our intrusive overweening authoritarian government
but dbq, if you're a schoolkid who wants to play sports you have to let a teacher follow you into the bathroom while you pee into a cup. I'd rather be scanned than hand over a cup of monitored pee.
The Court takes cases after they are ripe. Ripeness usually happens after two or more Circuits come to different conclusions on the same (or similar) matter(s) of law. Thus the idea that courts are "disinclined to pick ones they agree with" is both grammatically poor and wrong in fact.
Sure, the Court took Citizens United because there was a circuit split, Lilly Ledbetter, Exxon, Kelo, split split split as far as the eye can see. But nice job parroting the so-called conventional wisdom. Did you know that if you played with frogs you'd get warts on your hands? (Hint: that's not true, either.)
Tee hee hee. So you proceed with another logical fallacy in order to cover the first one? Oh dear gracious me but you are a dense former little old student, aren't you.
It's like you ought to either go back to "learn" more or you ought to sue for a refund. My advice: hire a lawyer better than yourself for the refund litigation.
I just want to say that I am sick and fucking tired of agreeing with FLS this last week. Can we get a thread about taxes or foreign policy or something, please?
Until it gets sorted out, wear your 4th Amendment undies...
Most incoming law students have no idea what they are getting into and find the results of all of their hard work and skills stretched to the breaking point during their first year of law school.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा