WillCAD

Yes and no. There are descendants of those slaves now sitting on the courts alongside descendents of the slaveholders. But the institution itself is much the same.

Unfortunately, no matter the ancestors of those currently sitting on US courts, the overall attitude has made a near-100% reversal from the original attitude.

Originally, such courts saw it as their overriding mandate to preserve, protect, and defend the rights and freedoms of the individual against encroachments and abuses by an over-reaching government.

Today, such courts see it as their mandate to protect the "greater good", even at the expense of individual liberty, and they seem to view it as a forgone conclusion that anything the government does is automatically for the purposes of securing the "greater good". Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a "greater good", there is only that which is good for each individual.

The most dangerous change in the courts' attitudes over the last 200 years was the introduction of the concept of "government interest." Government interest is treated by the courts as being more important than individual liberties. But in my view (and I believe it's a view shared by the majority of the Framers), government has no interest. Government has no rights. Government has only power and authority, which must be strictly limited precisely because of the attitude that "government interest" might be considered legitimate, or even more important that individual liberty.

But what do I know. I'm no Constitutional scholar. I'm just a guy who doesn't like having my freedoms restricted because of theoretical possibilities that people might abuse freedom to harm others.

sbrower

You will note that my message was VERY tone neutral in terms of my agreement/disagreement with my own conclusion. But people here are pretending to debate the meaning of statutes (not the underlying principles), and those statues are mostly only relevant to the legal system which implements them. If you check my posts you will see that I am FAR from compliant with stupid security. I caused a stink in 1978 (I refused to go to work in the restaurant at LAX unless they gave me a photo ID, which they did) and I don't think many of you can say you did that.

petaluma1

More than a month has passed and our friend eyecue has not returned to make his rebuttals. That must be what happens when one makes assertions that can't be backed up by fact.

eyecue

I am here, just read that the case was dismissed or declined by the district attorney, just like I said that it would be...

eyecue

For those of you wondering about the courts thoughts on flying in todays society vs the knowing what to expect at the airport here is part of a federal circuit panels thinking on the issue:
"But Chief Judge Theodore McKee, writing for a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel, said that "in a world where air passenger safety must contend with such nuanced threats as attempts to convert underwear into bombs and shoes into incendiary devices," the decision to detain George was reasonable"
and
"It is simply not reasonable to require TSA officials to turn a blind eye to someone trying to board an airplane carrying Arabic-English flashcards with words such as 'bomb,' 'to kill,' etc," he said. "Basic common sense would allow those officials to take reasonable and minimally intrusive steps to inquire into the potential passenger's motivations."

petaluma1

You knew that 6 weeks ago when you posted the claims that you can't back up. Don't even think about trying to tell us that you "just read that the case was dismissed......"

eyecue

Umm you know what I read when and how? Gads must check my firewall.

petaluma1

The post, #81, immediately before your post in this thread on February 10 indicates the case was dropped. I guess you didn't bother to read it; you're only interested in making your own uneducated assertions, like the link you're trying to make here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/22540086-post110.html

WillCAD

It is simply not reasonable to agree with a judge or a court whose idea of "basic common sense" includes considering the mere posession of flash cards in a foreign language to be an indicator of the intent to blow up the plane the posessor is about to board. The cards themselves pose absolutely no threat whatsoever. And while you may assert - as TSA and the court did - that the mere posession of such cards constitutes reasonable suspicion enough to detain, question, and search a person, I find the very idea to be an affront to all of the basic liberties protected by the Constitution.

But back to the original topic of this thread, which was the woman at DIA who files a sexual assault complaint against a TSA screener, I never had any hope of the DA filing charges against the screener. The same tired old arguments presented themselves - it's not sexual assault if the assaulter isn't getting off on it; it's not sexual assault if it's in the airport, because simply entering the airport (despite lack of any prior information) constitutes implied consent for the assault; it's not sexual assault if it doesn't do any physical damage to the victim; they were asking for it, they were dressed provocatively, they knew what they were getting into when they got there, they had a come-hither look in their eyes, blah, blah, blah.

By the way - did you read my earlier post about how TSA's procedures are NOT known in advance (intentionally on the part of TSA), so there can be no implied consent because nobody knows ahead of time what they'll be consenting to?

petaluma1

I think he did read it, WillCAD, and the above is his "proof" that we do know (or should know) what to expect when we get to the airport.

ETA that Judge McKee also said:

DeafBlonde

Don't you know that eyecue has very, very selective reading skills?

petaluma1

However, that was NOT the reason the DA gave for declining to prosecute.

relangford

"Is there no one to rid me of this damn (TSA)?" It seems no DAs and no judges are willing to stand up to the TSA (maybe because they fear THEY will be flying and don't want to be singled out). Almost seems like a definition of "terrorism", doesn't it? Terrorism to combat terrorism seems doomed to fail. I agree that there is a role for TSA: preventing WIE on planes (trains are a little harder to crash into buildings), which should be their ONLY role. Being a universal policeman to catch drug dealers, pornographers, child payment avoiders, bad guys at parades, etc. is far from what the law says - it is TRANSPORTATION Security Agency, after all - they are NOT LEOs. As long as we have spineless DAs and judges and Congresspersons, things will continue as they are (or increase).

Schmurrr

I have certainly received no response from elected officials beyond form letters.