As Expected, Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge On Naked Scanners

from the no-surprise dept

Mon, Oct 1st 2012 7:59pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: john corbett, scanners, supreme court, tsa

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Cake97, 1 Oct 2012 @ 9:17pm

Surprising? Nope.
P*ssies

That is all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 10:41pm

of course they wont....Obama told them not too..until after hes bought his reelection...I mean the November election....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:53am
  
  Re:
  Corporations are people my friend.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  Obama buying his re-election? I guess you must be one of the half-wits planning to vote for that cardboard cut-out Romney.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    They are all puppets to me, man. A vote to either candidate is a half-wit vote. You have to turn a blind eye to 80% of either candidates' actions to believe either is worth your vote.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 11:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    no, I am one of those "half-wits" who know that my and your vote for the President of America, has no meaning, American citizens do not choose their President
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 10:44pm

So lets add entry to SCOTUS to the naked scanner required areas.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:28am

Of course SCOTUS won't hear it - there isn't really anything to resolve here that isn't being dealt with in the lower courts. SCOTUS generally wants contradictory rulings, or wants a legal challenge to be based in some way on something that cannot be decided at a lower level.

This doesn't make it there at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:55am
  
  Re:
  Today I learned violation of your rights is ok if the lower courts agree to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    SCOTUS resolves issues when they are big enough. There isn't enough here for them to waste their time. There are plenty of better cases to have on the docket. Maybe a year or two from now, maybe this one might rise up to that level, but for the moment, it's still in motion in the lower courts and in the real world. Why would SCOTUS get in now, on what appears to be a fairly light argument to start with?
    
    They did the wisest thing, they passed on it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, so now SCOTUS resolve the really big issues even when the lower courts are all in agreement. Got it.
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:03am

Who knows who they're selling access to their database of semi-naked pictures to, that is besides the government which only wants to protect you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:46am
  
  Re:
  I doubt the naked pics are worth much, the real money is being made selling worthless machinery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 6:32am

Put the scanners at all entrances to all government buildings, including the white house.
After all, we can�t be too safe with our government leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:35am

Why?
Why are Americans all so uptight about being seen naked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 3:14pm

The supreme court can SUCK IT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]