No that's not what I said. I said I'd be in favor of challenging the unconstitutionality of profiling as was defined in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, in which O'Connor identified,
You're in favor of challenging it by out and out ignoring it and instituting policy that runs counter to it in hopes that said policy...which would already be under way...is challenged in court and HOPEFULLY wins out.
First your sentence doesn't even make sense "...because you feel its unconstitution to institute something that utilizes a tactic that has been ruled unconstitutional..." Cut down on the prepositions and make your point, what that point may be.
You feel the current searches are "trampling our rights" based on your OPINION, so your answer is to institute something that the SCOTUS has already ruled DOES trample on peoples rights. To me, that's not makes your supposed concerns about our "rights" seem pretty transparent and hollow.
I think I've already identified a pilot program utilizing El Al's methods may be beneficial. You're complaint earlier about logistics and cost you've obviously abandoned, so now your relying on "settled law" with regards to Constitutionality and lay claim that El Al profiles so their interviewing will not work in the U.S.
And I acknowledge I'd be fine with your pilot program, except for the profiling, since the Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional. If you want to challenge it somehow and, if the challenge is won, THEN impliment it...be my guest! However I don't think profiling will be that affective enough to potentially willingly and knowingly violate the constitution in the HOPE that when its challenged the current status quo will be overturned.
I've not focused on my "logistics" comment right now because you're not suggesting a nation wide role out focusing solely on an "El Al" style of system. You're suggesting a single airport, small scale test, that melds that as an additioanl layer on top of what we have. I've got no issue with that, save for the profiling.
Fine - then interview WITHOUT profiling if that makes you happy. It still doesn't change the fact that my OPINION is the profiling cases and constitutionality of profiling given the 3 criteria above could use clarification.
Wonderful. Glad you have an opinion. And that's fine you have conviction enough that you'd wantonly violate constitutional law with your polices in HOPE that said constitutioanl rulings would be overturned. I don't think profiling would be anywhere near effective enough to warrant such a thing for me to be able to support it. However, as I said previously, I'd have no problem seeing a pilot program of what you suggested sans the profiling.
Nice appeal to authority, however, the court that has the power to judge constitutionality has been overturned or else we'd still have slavery (Dred Scott vs. Sanford), or we'd still have racial segregation, (Brown vs. The Board of Ed. Topeka).
However, significant difference here.
Dred Scott and Brown both had the courts claiming one thing as constitutional, the law FOLLOWED that constitutional law, and then later when people challenged it again it was over turned.
What YOU'RE suggesting is that the courts have claimed one thing as UNconstitutional, you want the law/policies to violate said constitutional law by implimenting it and then challenging it, and then hope after the fact its reversed.
Or am I misunderstanding you and you would like to bring a legal challenge against the notion of profiling FIRST, and then IF its overturned impliment your plan to profile?
So sorry you're offended that I'm daring to question the authority or decision of the SCOTUS, as you know the makeup of the SCOTUS politically has ramifications on their decision making process as well as their interpretation of the Constitution.
Yes, godforbid me wanting things to be done constitutionally with regards to the constitution. Silly silly me. I mean, it's like I think the Constitution established the Supreme Court or something. Jeesh!
