Bill to Criminalize TSA groping added to Special Session in Texas.

[woo me with science]

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/politics/special-session-gains-tsa-pat-down-bill

Special session gains TSA pat down bill
Criminalizes some TSA touching in security checks

Updated: Monday, 20 Jun 2011, 6:43 PM CDT
Published : Monday, 20 Jun 2011, 6:37 PM CDT
By Josh Hinkle

....The bill would make it a misdemeanor for TSA agents to touch certain parts of a person’s body during a security check.

Similar legislation in the regular session died in the Senate after concerns arose from the Department of Justice. A DOJ letter suggested the bill would interfere with TSA security responsibilities and could force the grounding of flights in Texas.

Simpson changed the language of the HB 41 to give the federal government more time to respond. Instead of going into effect immediately after passage, it would allow 90 days.

....There is a similar bill filed in the Senate, as well. The author, Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, sent a letter to Perry saying he had enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill.
....

[sabrina 1]

1. Good for them. I was hoping they would not give up

on that legislation. A completely bi-partisan vote passed the previous bill by 100%.

[SDuderstadt]

3. How would you feel if Texas wanted to nullify the...

1964 Civil Rights Act, Sabrina?

BTW, how are all those dismissed federal lawsuits against the TSA coming along?

[RC]

4. They're not. This has to do with dealing with TSA'a legalized sexual groping.

There's no conspiracy to belittle here.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Tbey certainly could using the...

very same principle.

[sabrina 1]

7. Don't be ridiculous, it is a completely different principle.

Nice attempt to distract from the issue, although not particularly clever.

[SDuderstadt]

9. No, it's not, Sabrina...

you guys are being unwittingly duped by RW legislatures who want to rollback federal law, along with the federal government's ability to enforce said laws. Ask yourself a question: why is this only happening in conservative states?

[sabrina 1]

11. Funny, were you telling us we were being 'unwittingly

duped' all during the Bush administration when these gross and vile intrusions on people's personal rights were STOPPED by the left?? I remember a lot of cheering then.

So, you supported Bush's attempts to implement these vile practices? And in fact, Bush didn't go this far.

A letter changes 'R' to 'D' and suddenly what was completely unacceptable becomes acceptable to some people. Explain that if you will. What exactly changed other the letter after the name of the president, that now should make these violations of the Constitution acceptable to progressives?

There is nothing more guarantteed to dupe people than blind partisanship. The Founding Fathers were so right about that.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Security systems have to evolve...

as terrorists' tactics evolve, Sabrina.

In the meantime, don't ever try to tie me to W again. Got it? A simple rule of "debate" is that you allow me to state my position before you attack it, not make it up, then attack it.

If you choose to file suit against the TSA yourself, I can only hope that you don't try to represent yourself. BTW, one of the principal drivers of the State Sovereignty movement is states wanting to prevent the federal government from interfering with said states restricting abortions. Congratulations, Sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

16. Still didn't answer the question.

Nothing has 'evolved' that would make the destruction of the Constitution acceptable, period! What are we supposed to be protecting??? Turning this country into a police state is NOT acceptable because we have a few cowards here who run to the Federal Govt to protect them from a threat that is so miniscule it is not worthy of even thinking about.

And don't tell me what I can or cannot say. Especially since YOU are attempting to link me to some far right wacko States Rights group! Talk about hypocrisy.

It is a perfectly valid question to ask someone on DU considering this was such a big issue for democrats during the Bush years. Any sudden changes regarding constitutional issues are part of discussion. And will remain part of it. This administration has done what Bush could not do and it is a disgrace.

This is a Constitutional Issue that affects all Americans. It is separate from all the other issues you desperately keep trying to link it to. It is a 4th and 5th Amend issue and the Fed Govt is wrong which means the states will have to set them right.

Every single Democrat I have known since these tactics were first introduced have opposed them. Every one. Successfully until now. This administration should be ashamed of itself. What a total disappointment they have been on Constitutional issues. Unlike freepers we on the left do not ignore bad policies simply because our party is responsible for them.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Show me where I...

"tried to link you to some far right wacko states right group". Can you read? I did no such thing.

Beyond that, you referring to "every single Democrat (you) have known", is like walking into McDonald's and asking, "does anyone here like fast food?". By contrast, I have been to countless Democratic functions, both large and small and the only mention the TSA has drawn is along the lines of uncomfortable, but necessary.

As far as your claim of minuscule risk, did it ever occur to you that the risk is lessened BECAUSE of these measures? Do you honestly argue that the incidence would not go up if these measures were withdrawn? Do you understand the concept of cause and effect?

I'd still like to set-up two competing security systems. The current system versus your minimalist approach. I can guarantee which system the vast majority if passengers and crews would pick. The rest of you are welcome to roll the dice in the other system and see what happens.

[sabrina 1]

6. Refiled. And they were not dismissed on their merits, but on

jurisdiction issues.

The TSA has had to pay out on one lawsuit, and there will be more.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Sabrina...

How did counsel for the plaintiffs not know the proper court to file the lawsuits in? Can you give me the new citations?

[sabrina 1]

10. They didn't have counsel, ordinary citizens

and they are contesting the claim that the case cannot be heard in that particular court. After which they will move forward. People do not give up their Constitutional rights easily, well most people that is.

[SDuderstadt]

12. They are not permitted to represent themselves pro se...

Sabrina.

If they even try that, in the old lawyer"s saying, they have fools for clients.

[sabrina 1]

14. Well, no one's stopping them as of now.

And I'm sure if they find they need counsel, the ACLU and other civil rights groups will come forward for them as they did for others. So far, things are going well so there's no need to run up legal bills.

As for the woman who was molested and sued, the TSA settled rather than go to trial.

Good for Texas. I was sure they would not allow the Federal Govt to deny them the right to stop their constituents from being molested.

And when other states follow their example, as they are planning to do, while it may take a little time, our rights will be restored.

[SDuderstadt]

15. "things are going well"

I wouldn't exactly call every suit being dismissed with prejudice "going well", Sabrina.

I also would not call the Rutherford Institute a "civil rights group".

[Dawson Leery]

2. This needs to be a federal law.

If not, more states need to pass a similar law.