As Expected, Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge On Naked Scanners
from the no-surprise dept
This will hardly come as a surprise, but Slashdot alerts us to the news that the Supreme Court has chosen not to hear John Corbett's quixotic appeal against the legality of the naked scanners now being commonly used in airports (though, via upgrades, there's now less nudity involved). The legal effort was a long shot from the beginning. Corbett has been on a crusade against the machines, which I appreciate -- but his efforts sometimes seem to go too far, and didn't do much to help his case.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Surprising? Nope.
That is all
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I've often thought that if we forced them to put up with the crap they inflict upon us lesser folks they might suddenly change their tune about caring.
While he's been over the top, the sheer amount of BS being peddled in the name of safety requires someone making as absurd things in response.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This doesn't make it there at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They did the wisest thing, they passed on it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see you are scheduling the docket, any additional insight?
Wow, it's a good thing you are on top of this - otherwise the SCOTUS might have heard cases which should be left on the back burner for a few more years.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, we can’t be too safe with our government leaders.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment