Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Privacy The Courts Transportation

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Won't Hear Body-Scanner Appeal

Comments Filter:
  • Re:well, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Monday October 01, 2012 @01:14PM (#41515183) Homepage
    I hate to say it but I kind of figured that nothing would come of it. It seems the same thing always happens.

    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!
  • by ichimunki ( 194887 ) on Monday October 01, 2012 @01:30PM (#41515409)
    They declined because he filed in Florida, not DC. That's pretty simple. So the next step is to file in what is apparently the proper venue. This isn't like they're upholding the law or judging the case on merits... although I'd bet if they wanted to hear the case, they would figure out some loophole to get past the bureaucratic BS, rather than forcing the process back to nearly square one.
  • This is a Sign... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2012 @01:31PM (#41515429)

    That extensive exercising of the 2nd Amendment will be required to turn back the encroachment upon our liberties.

  • time to face facts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Monday October 01, 2012 @01:41PM (#41515561) Homepage
    and conclude that had the supreme court heard the issue, it would probably have just ruled in favour of the government.
    and had it ruled against the government, the TSA and cur->administration() would have ignored it.

    The best option at this point is to select "alternative screening" whenever you go through the airport. Refuse the private screening as this only benefits the TSA by allowing it to hide the dissent against this technology. Avoid engaging in smalltalk, even if solicited, during the pat down. I generally stand tall, and fix my vision into the crowd of passengers entering screening.
  • by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Monday October 01, 2012 @01:56PM (#41515769) Homepage

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2012 @02:22PM (#41516095)

    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.

  • by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Monday October 01, 2012 @02:23PM (#41516119)

    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.

  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Monday October 01, 2012 @02:30PM (#41516199) Homepage

    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)

    by tsaoutofourpants ( 2615595 ) on Monday October 01, 2012 @04:12PM (#41517577)
    "Examining the junk" of an adult, or photographing the same naked, isn't traditionally a lawful governmental objective either. But it becomes more obvious how wrong it is when you think of the children, elderly, handicapped, breast cancer survivors, rape survivors, etc., that have to deal with this nonsense.

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun