Supreme Court Won't Hear Body-Scanner Appeal 170
stevegee58 writes "After a long string of legal setbacks, the case brought by Jonathan Corbett challenging TSA's use of full body scanners and enhanced pat-downs has come to an end. Today the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so current TSA practices will stand. The TSA started allowing the use of the advanced imaging technology in October 2010."
Re:well, (Score:5, Insightful)
step one - enact something that pisses off damn near everyone
Tell the angry mob that you will look into it and something will be done
quietly drop it when the mass forgets about it because OHHHH SHINEY!
Re:One thing is missing: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a Sign... (Score:3, Insightful)
That extensive exercising of the 2nd Amendment will be required to turn back the encroachment upon our liberties.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slightly off topic..but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like laws and bills and crap should logically go through the Supreme Court *before* being enacted.
So you want to give veto power to 5 unelected people who have a lifetime term of office? I understand the instincts, but this seems like a really bad idea.
Re:well, (Score:2, Insightful)
sir, first of all, thanks for your tireless work on this.
secondly, best nickname ever!
thirdly, where can I contribute to your work, please do a kickstarter/indygogo on this.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the "process" is the primary method by which powerful tyrants deny justice to meaningless peasants.
He was supposed to file in DC wasn't he? Why exactly? Does the court in Florida belong to a different nation? The moon was in an incorrect astral sign? Wind was coming from the wrong compass point?
When he files in DC (at his own expense of course and on his own time - but I am sure everyone gets many days free time fully paid from his/her job to proudly challenge an entire multi-trillion dollar agency in any state of the agency's choosing) he will promptly find out that while DC was the correct court, the "process" requires him to wait 2 years for a decision, which will be that he "does not have standing" (being a mere peasant) or that he is "not a party" (not being a member of the government) etc and so on.
Due process my ass.
The whole point of this exercise is the pretense that average citizens have any say whatsoever in what the government or other wealthy powers do to them. The US courts have been rubber-stamping the aristocracy's decisions for a long time now, all the while creating ever more byzantine "process" in order to insure that the lower classes have to jump through so many hoops as to make participation of anyone without 40 lawyers and 100 paralegals pointless.
The beauty of this system is that technically everyone can participate but in practice only the very wealthy can do so effectively. And bonus: more byzantine the rules, higher paid and numerous becomes the priesthood that attends to them: the lawyers.
Everyone wins, well except the average peon who gets to pay for this fun in more ways than one.
Re:Slightly off topic..but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's 9 people and THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT POWER.
By design, the SCOTUS is no less powerful than any other branch of the government. Complaints about "activist judges" are a Big Lie propaganda ploy intended to neuter an important part of the government meant to balance the rest.
Yes. 9 appointees should have that much power. They were intended to. Probably to balance out the influence of politicians that constantly have to campaign for re-election and finance same.
Re:well, (Score:5, Insightful)