and the Drip...Drip...Drip...continues
Jesse Ventura, former pro-wrestler, Governor, and outspoken man about town brought a lawsuit against the TSA early this year, maintaining that his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches were violated when he suffered through one too many invasive searches at an airport. Ventura has an artificial hip, and so he sets off the metal detector alarms whenever he attempts to travel.
And now Jesse is pissed.
His suit's been tossed faster than a defective hip joint.
In rejecting Ventura's bid for blind justice, Federal District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson cited that her court had no jurisdiction by Act of Congress, and that all challenges to the TSA had to be brought before the US Circuit Court instead.
Jesse Ventura then launched into an intense denunciation of the Court and the United States government as a whole, declaring he would never fly commercial again, and apply for citizenship in Mexico.
Of course I don't have all the behind-the-scenes dirt on this story, but one aspect of this strikes me as off-kilter: Why didn't Ventura's lawyer(s) know that they were filing an action against a federal agency in the wrong court? While I agree in principle with Ventura, that he should have had his day in federal district court, the judge in this case didn't say an action could not be brought against the TSA at the circuit level, nor did the judge rule in any way on the merits of the case. So, Ventura, could continue the fight if he so chose, but either because of money, hubris, or bad advice he appears to be choosing not to do so. And for now, I prefer to assume that Ventura is not pursuing the case because of money.
But this all doesn't get the District Court completely off the hook. And by that I mean that there is a long long history of activist judges ignoring the will of Congress and going their own way when rendering judgement. So in this case, the will of Congress must be obeyed, even if it means denying an aggrieved private citizen due process (from a certain point of view). Why is Congressional will suddenly sacrosanct by a liberal judge appointed to her current bench by Barack Obama? Why indeed.
My speculation is that the will of Congress is sacrosanct here because it conveniently obstructs justice. That the courts, and many Congressmen, well understand that the Fourth Amendment is being routinely violated by the federal government at airports around the country. In the interests of the extraordinary and continuous threat by the forces of darkness, they are down with federal agents copping a feel of our "junk". They just don't want to be put in the position of having to say so. Therefore, stalling and obfuscation of legal action against the defacto suspension of the Fourth Amendment by, of, and for the government is the unspoken order of the day.
And let us not forget something here - the imperative of checking said 'junk' of millions of men, women, and children traveling by air at domestic airports was to thwart terrorists from boarding planes with bombs attached to their 'junk'. There has not been one solitary incident of a diaper bomber on board a domestic flight. Millions have been groped, and not a single domestic incident. Not one. So does the FEAR warrant old ladies, kids, and people with metal hips getting their junk checked? A very sad significant number of people say 'yes'. I steadfastly say NO. Another point not to forget - the TSA knows that would-be terrorists can plant explosives in a body cavity, and the TSA has nothing in their arsenal of intrusive searches that can detect a bomb hidden thusly.
Jesse Ventura's refusal to fly commercial is on the right track, but sadly there is not enough organic outcry from the unclean masses to begin an 'occupy' campaign at our airports. So, from the mostly leftist Occupier view point, it's ok for agents to touch junk (more ok for some than others apparently), as long as they don't make a profit while doing so.
I have said before, and I'll say it again, the only effective way to neutralize these humiliatingly invasive searches is to refuse to fly. Economics hurts more than anything else, including mayhem. If nobody flies, the TSA will initially offer defiant resistance, and then collapse.
So Jesse, if your listening (yeah I know you're not but...), you have the media muscle to stage an Occupy style love-in at an airport of your choosing in protest of these unconstitutional searches. So rather than thumbing your nose at your fellow Americans, and flying south for the legal winter.....occupy an airport near you.
I'd love to see it.
"Occupy(ing) an airport near you" will get you arrested by the local police. Boycotting the airlines for a day may be a more effective protest. No passengers equals no profits and no one to search. The TSA could use it as a training day. The flight inspectors could cavity search their supervisors.
Reply to this