You may not be a lawyer, but you sure have a good sense for legal strategy. Finding someone with Gilmore's views on the subject who is also a Hawaiian of limited means would have certainly made the case more pressing. My understanding is that there is very little ferry service between the islands, so air travel is realistically the only mode of transportation for many Hawaiians who are traveling outside of their island.

Then again, if such a plaintiff were to prevail, I'd think the Ninth Circuit (which includes Hawaii) would limit its holding to the special circumstances faced by Hawaiians.

This kind of hair-splitting would make even less sense that the Gilmore decision. However, it would open the door to recognizing that air travel may be a right.

There may be other circumstances in which air travel is the only practical means of getting from point A to point B. Recognizing it is a right even in limited circu8mstances could go a long way.

One generally and sadly prevailing attitude is one I heard the other day, talking to a group of Stupidity-Screening miscreants like myself. The sole senior who was 'okay' with TSA said: "I don't care WHAT they do to me, long's there's a beach at the end of it all.."

Go fer it Pops. There's a handful of magic beans in store for ya if you just give up your constitution, too.

We ALL have the RIGHT to fly WITHOUT being publicly offended. Even TSA members.

Hair-splitting is exactly what one can expect -- especially given the latest additions to SCOTUS. After all, even the good old "knock and announce" standard has been given a knock-out blow by he who held the balance of power -- namely, Samuel Alito & Co. And this was done by hair-splitting and then some. And no surprise there either. :eek:

I think we're going to be "giving up rights" for quite some time to come, unless the SCOTUS gets a better mix.

They may increase security but remember that there is a right to fly.

The airlines themselves have the right to deny boarding to anyone for any reason. They do it everyday and have been doing it for years.

I don't know why you don't understand that.

Public right of transit doesn't mean right to public transit. This could be interpreted as simply saying that you're free to get a plane and fly around if you choose to do so.

Given that the above claim -- that "[t]he airlines themselves have the right to deny boarding to anyone for any reason" -- is false, it's easy to see why. ;)

That's been addressed previously in this thread and is a red herring.

Then he can't read it. It would be better to tattoo it on his buttocks bewteen which his head is burried. Sorry for being crude, but........

I know of opne constitution that is modelled on the U.S. consitution and the bill or rights that explcitly states the right to travel freely within the country. It is a basic or a fundamental right in a free society.

I am sorry Bart does not realise that the courts have ruled wrong in the past. There was a time when the Supreme ourt ruled allowing exclsuion of certain nationalioties from becoming U.S. citizens. The court was wrong in this case.

This is the same argument that people used when certain pilots refused to carry some passengers of colour. People claimed the pilot has the ultimate right to refuse to carry any passenger as he is reponsible for the safety of the passengers, crew and the aircraft. THis logic is flawed. It's the pilot's duty to ensure safety of the passengers, crew and the aircraft. In fulfilling that responsibility, a pilot may excercise certain powers consistent with the safety objective. He/she does not have a blanket right to decide who may be refused transport on his/her aircraft. The same logic applies to any travel and any restrictions the Govt may impose upon the travelling public.

Looking forward to showing this to the next TSA agent who asks "Do you want to fly today, Sir?" !

Indeed. You don't even know whether I don't understand that. There are many things to learn. ;)