TSA's hands-on approach to airline safety has consitutional implications

Maybe it's the continuing refusal of the country's legal authorities to address abuses of power committed by the Bush administration in blatant violation of U.S. constitutional legal principles that's to blame. But maybe, just maybe, all these years of neglecting the civic education of our nation's young people is responsible for the fact that so many adults have absolutely no understanding of the law. How else to explain the lack of outrage at the latest indignity from the Transportation Security Administration, the newest federal agency designated to make air travel too unpleasant for anyone but overpaying, prescreened first-class passengers. This week's announcement that airport screeners would begin routinely swabbing air passengers' hands at airport gates to test for traces of explosives further demonstrates just how far things have deteriorated. The hand-swabbing plan, a reaction to the attempting bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, is being put into effect at airports all over the country, according to Cable News Network (CNN). "The point is to make sure that the air environment is a safe environment," Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security secretary, told CNN. "We know that al Qaeda [and other] terrorists continue to think of aviation as a way to attack the United States. One way we keep it safe is by new technology [and] random use of different types of technology." CNN said security experts it consulted agreed that hand swabbing was a good way of ensuring that no explosives had been brought onto a flight, and even the American Civil Liberties Union agreed that swabbing not objectionable constitutionally, provided the TSA only tests for explosives and does not discriminate against people who might initially test positive for reasons that have nothing to do with explosives, like heart patients. But even if the program does unfold without problems, how long will it be before overzealous inspectors overdo it at any of the thousands of locations they will be overseeing? And what will that mean for the right to privacy, which is already under attack by the government? A search without a warrant is a search without a warrant -- and should continue to be against the basic law of the United States.

Obstructionism as an art form

Today's comment by Sen. John Kyl of Arizona threatening a filibuster of whomever U.S. President Barak Obama nominates for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is another low for the foundering Republican Party in a decade of lows. Believe it or not, the second most-powerful GOP senator said today that he would try to hold up confirmation of any court nominee who displays the quality of empathy, according to the Associated Press. Kyl told the conservative Federalist Society that such a judge could not be trusted to be objective so such a nomination should be blocked. "I was distinguishing between a person who is just liberal — and undoubtedly this nominee will be liberal — and one who decides cases not based upon the law or the merits but, rather, upon his or her emotions, or feelings or preconceived ideas," Kyl said. "That would be a circumstance in which I could not support the nominee." Do these guys even listen to what they're saying? Kyl's remarks were in response to comments to a C-Span interview broadcast Saturday in which Obama said he wanted to nominate a judge with "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" in deciding cases. "You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you," Obama said. "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living." Who could argue with that? Well, apparently, at least Kyl has figured out how to, even though he should well know that George W. Bush, Obama's predecessor, appointed doctrinaire conservatives to the court. "We will distinguish between a liberal judge on one side and one who doesn't decide cases on the merits but, rather, on the basis of his or her preconceived ideas," Kyl said, according to AP. Obama is expected to announce his nomination this week, possibly as early as Tuesday. The nominee should be confirmed with little problem, because the Democrats hold a 59-40 majority in the U.S. Senate. People known to be under consideration include federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Sonia Sotomayor, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, the AP said.