Lawsuit Former Gov. Ventura Bodyslams TSA Scope-n-Grope

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by barbell, Jun 9, 2011.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Oh, (expletive deleted), that horse left the barn long ago.
     
    FaustsAccountant likes this.
  2. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Do you mean about jurisdiction? The judge said that she couldn't rule on the merits of the case because she didn't have jurisdiction. A lot of cases get tossed out that way. Courts generally look at all of the procedural issues first before they get to the merits of the case. Jurisdiction is one of the first 'procedures' that gets examined.

    FetePerfection said:
    >From what I read this morning, Congress passed a law stating lawsuits against TSA/DHS are to be filed with the Court of Appeals, therefore District Courts d0 not have jurisdiction.

    Right. This is why she couldn't rule on the merits.

    nachtnebel said:
    >how can Congress tell the Judicial branch who can and cannot considers cases against the laws they pass?

    In this case, the statute defines what can be done. But -- here's some info on 'jurisdiction stripping'. You won't like it. :( I'm not a fan of jurisdiction stripping.
     
  3. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    You're right. I don't like it. No surprise that these new laws have been passed since the 1990s, and that they further erode our rights. As usual, they erode the rights of the weakest among us first, those whom society despises, then go on to tackle everyone else. This is always the way oppression proceeds.
     
  4. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    There's good news and bad news about what Congress can do to limit the power of the courts. The good news is that the 5th amendment guarantees of due process prevent Congress from limiting the power of the courts in a way that violates that guarantee. The bad news is that "due process" is vague and many courts have allowed laws that significantly reduce -- perhaps all but eliminate -- due process.

    Some courts haven't. For example, in McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that a law passed by Congress could not be interpreted to restrict all challenges that Congress tried to restrict, because it would eliminate due process.

    With the TSA cases, the reason the TSA wants the appeal to be in the Court of Appeals is that there is no right to witnesses, trial by jury, oral arguments, and most importantly, discovery, in that court. To me, this is a significant enough restriction that I feel it would no longer give me the due process guaranteed to me by the Constitution. This issue is almost certain to go to the Supreme Court, and a loss would represent a severe blow to both our 4th and 5th amendment rights. Luckily, when this goes to the Supreme Court, it will be well-represented. In all likelihood, the multiple cases against the TSA would be consolidated into one, which would mean that nearly a dozen attorneys, 2 Harvard Law Students, and myself would be working together to make this happen, in addition to some powerful amici curiae likely to weigh in (I can't imagine EPIC and the EFF would pass up a chance to file a brief in this one).

    --Jon
     
    phoebepontiac, lkkinetic and Doober like this.
  5. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    And I'm optimistic about your case, Affection. I cannot imagine that EPIC and EFF wouldn't weigh in -- I'm sure others will as well.
     
  6. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Yabbutt I'm trying to make them feel guilty...
     
  7. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    You can't shame the shameless! :(
     

Share This Page