Groping for reality
I’m really tired of hearing how sincere David Simpson is, how strong his principles are, how concerned he is about protecting the privacy of his family and all Americans from the sex-starved fingers of federal security officials. Can’t we just acknowledge that, however sincere he is, his bill to prevent pat-downs is crazy? Has it occurred to him that air travel will come to a halt in this state if his bill passes? Does he really think that he can pass a bill that compels federal employees to risk violating a Texas criminal law?
He may, but John E. Murphy begs to differ. Mr. Murphy is United States Attorney for the Western District from Texas, and upon learning of Simpson’s bill, and (presumably), having a good laugh about it, wrote Straus, Dewhurst, and the chief administrative officials of the House and Senate the following letter:
Dear Leaders:
I write with regard to HB 1937, which I understand will imminently be presented to the Texas Senate for a vote. This office, as well as the Southern, Norther, and Eastern District of Texas United States Attorneys, would like to advise you of the significant legal and practical problems that will be created if the bill becomes law. As you are no doubt aware, the bill makes it a crime for a federal Transportation Security Official (“TSO”) to perform the security screening that he or she is authorized and required by federal law to perform. The proposed legislation would make it unlawful for a federal agent such as a TSO to perform certain specified searches for the purpose of gaining access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation. That provision would this criminalize searches that are required under federal regulations in order to ensure the safety of the American public….
Murphy’s letter continues:
HB 1937 would conflict directly with federal law. The practical import of the bill is that it would threaten criminal prosecution of Transportation Security Administration personnel who carry out the security procedures required under federal statutes and TSA regulations passed to implement those statutes. Those officials cannot be put to the choice of risking criminal prosecution or carrying out their federal duties. UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, TEXAS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FEDERAL AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR FEDERAL DUTIES OR TO PASS A STATUTE THAT CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL LAW. [emphasis is mine]
Finally, there is this dire warning:
If HB 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seem an emergency stay of the statute. Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it would not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.
I note with some dismay that Dan Patrick is the Senate sponsor of this legislation. This is not the bill to grab headlines over. It just reveals how far the Republican rank and file to support offbeat bills that shake an imaginary fist at the federal government, even if they threaten public safety.
Anonymous says:
Dan Patrick, the feds touching his junk is an unamerican outrage. But the state of texas sticking a probe up a woman’s vagina, eh, not so much. Can you say f*cking hypocrite!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Uh…Anonymous…do you know how a sonogram is performed? What’s this probe business all about?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Uh, do you know how sonograms are performed in very early stages of pregnancy? Google is your friend.
Reply »
Jerod Loughner's Career Counselor Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Bingo. Dan Patrick and David Simpson both deserve forced and repeated anal probes.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Patrick has been on the local radio here in the DFW area squealing about other legislators kowtowing to the feds.
I agree with you Mr. Burka..with his crowd, important issues take a back seat to the goofy stuff their minds conjure up.
Reply »
Tim says:
I’m waiting for the inevitable news that Patrick or Simpson has been arrested for groping someone.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
You are think of the head of the IMF raping a hotel maid.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Certain sonograms are internal, and provide a more clear visual image, however, I don’t believe the Sonogram bill passed would require such a procedure to produce that more clear image.
My first thought on the groping bill, is Republican talking points against the Supremacy Clause, and that’s all well and good, but the bill is limited to the offense. Even presuming that the supremacy clause would not override our ability to regulate TSA agents, the bill does not consider prohibiting TSA from pulling the flights, so I can’t conceive of any Republican-mind scenario that would not shut down all air traffic.
Reply »
anon Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Are you kidding me? An “internal” sonogram is required in the early stages of pregnancy. How did you miss the graphic conversation on the House and Senate floors about this topic?
Reply »
PinkLaw Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
During the stage of pregnancy that women would be required to get sonograms, the only option is trans-vaginal, which means they stick a probe looking instrument in your lady parts. Lesson here kids is that invasive governmental touching is only against the law when it happens to white men.
Reply »
longleaf says:
The main problem is that people thought Rick Perry was serious about secession and nullification. There are MANY, MANY people (the vast majority of them being Tea Partiers and/or GOPers) who believe the plain language of the 10th Amendment OVERRIDES hundreds of years of judicial precedent otherwise. They also would like to ignore that “unpleasantness” known as the Civil War which also seriously eroded the supposed power of the 10th Amendment via the postwar amendments (13th through 15th).
The Constitutional literalists are exactly like the Biblical literalists. They have a version of reality based in either the late 18th Century in the case of the former or the early 1st Century in the case of the latter. Incidentally, the first GOPer I heard demagogue the 10th Amendment was U.S. Sen. Robert Dole when he was preparing to run unsuccessfully for President against Bill Clinton in 1996. It’s what one pundit once called “boob bait for the Bubbas.”
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
So, what was the House Democrats excuse for voting for this?
Reply »
texun says:
But how can any sane person oppose a bill that is backed by a couple of loud-mouthed talk show hosts?
When will Patrick announce for the next USS race in Texas? Teeing off on the Lite Gov certainly seems like a big step in that direction?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
I have written before that Patrick would be a potential Senate candidate, but that was in the context of his getting an appointment from Perry.
Reply »
AreYouKiddingMe says:
Why don’t we buy a small island and send Patrick, Berman, Perry, Christian, and a few others to live on it and run it like they want to. Let’s see how that works out for them…
These clowns get crazier by the minute…
Reply »
anita Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Please add Laubenburg to the voyage.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
And add…..Van Taylor….Simpson….P. King….C. Perry…
Bon voyage
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
King does not belong on this list.
Dave Mundy Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Well, I see the koolaid crowd is in rare form today. The Dept. of Justice threatens to use an act of war (aerial blockade) against Texas and y’all are defending the action?
More specifically, you’re defending it by using all the usual insults and innuendo to counter the positions of the other side. Nice of y’all to inject some civility.
Face it folks: Texas is again being punished for standing against The Messiah. Washington has tried again and again to destroy the Texas economy because it’s embarrassing to this administration to see a state succeeding in spite of Washington rather than because of it.
Reply »
Nopers says:
Somebody ought to put him on a 10 worst list….
Reply »
Arlington Dad says:
Are you people serious? Have you read the bill? All it said was they couldn’t grope people’s genitals without probable cause or reference to a federal statute authorizing. You know, that they just had to follow existing law. This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment or Federal law trumping State law–there is no Federal law in play here. That’s kind of the point.
I’ve got 5 kids who can’t risk flying to see their grandparents anymore because of the risk of violation in an airport and if you think that’s not a real concern you aren’t paying attention to what’s going on. New reports of people who thought it was no big deal til it happened to them are showing up weekly.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
What exactly is the “risk of violation” that you speak of? I fly often, never had a problem. Nor have my children. Perhaps you’re overly sensitive.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
A Dad, turn off Alex Jones and enjoy the friendly skies. And please don’t turn your kids into Junior John Birchers.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I would imagine some are asking to go through the line twice …or three times.
Reply »
anita says:
There is some irony that the same House that found this ‘groping’ to be a threat to civil liberties killed Rep. McClendon’s rather modest bill to create of a commission to investigate convictions after exoneration and to prevent wrongful convictions. 91 Republicans, including Rep. Simpson, defeated this bill on the House floor.
So if you are wrongfully convicted in Texas, rotting in a dank jail while a perp walks our streets, Republicans see no civil liberty problem there — but subjecting yourself to a search in an airport, this must be stopped as a deprivation of our civil liberties!
I guess it has to do with the race or class of people who occupy our jails versus those who typically stand in line at airports.
Reply »
Anon says:
Simpson and Patrick make 10 Worst. So does Dewhurst.
Patrick will use this to run against Dewhurst in the primary for US Senate.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Good luck to Patrick then. He’ll be splitting his base with Michael Williams and Ted Cruz who are already in the race and jumping on the issue.
Reply »
Who shot Mike? says:
Simpson also killed the effort to outlaw Salvia, which is as potent as LSD (if not more so), because he said it was one of ‘god’s plants.’
Simpson joins a long line of goofy crackpots to come to the legislature from Longview. What did those poor folks ever do to deserve such a long line of nitwits?
Simpson: a Ten Worst List, one term wonder. Let’s pray he is.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
“Salvia, which is as potent as LSD (if not more so)”
It’s not like LSD at all. LSD is a synthetic chemical. Also, ou need a much larger dose of salvia to experience hallucinations compared to LSD. So, no, salvia is not as potent as LSD. Next time, try searching for some facts before posting, whether you agree with his vote or not.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
I agree with him on that. Our “war on drugs” has not worked. Prohibition never works.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
He has a better chance of getting Best than Worst. Look up his votes–bi-partisan yet predictable. I do fear he will eat a live chicken at any moment, but I admire his courage.
Reply »
Arlington Dad says:
I’ve never watched Alex Jones and have no desire to start now. The notion that only crazies on the right should care that people who couldn’t get jobs at McDonalds and have never caught anyone are feeling up little kids and old ladies would be laughable if it wasn’t reprehensible. Lets not forget the right started this while the left opposed it, and now the left wants to continue it and that should be ok? I know partisianship in this country is off the rails but this is beyond the pale.
I fly too, or at least used to until I saw too much of this gong on. If I’m overly sensitive for not subjecting myself and my family to invasive touching that would get any CEO fired, so be it, at least I’m sane.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This just in —
Rep. David Simpson scores 100 on the Al-Qaida scorecard . . . “All praise to Brother Simpson for undermining the security efforts of The Great Satan U.S. of A.” said Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaida’s Deputy Operations Chief.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Insha Allah
Reply »
Andy says:
And John E. Murphy (presumably) had a good laugh about it … and at the very last minute, too.
Good thing Judge Murphy didn’t take the day off, or he would have missed his chance to dialog with Texas about this very important bill! Thank God he heard about Simpson’s bill just in time to say something! *whew!*
You’d think 3-4 months would have been enough time, but it takes awhile for news to travel in the Western District of Texas (whatever that is).
Reply »
MonkeyMan Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
I suspect they had more faith in the Texas Legislature then to think that this bill would get any traction. I imagine they also didn’t want to give it any credibility by soeaking to it, until they had no choice.
This is the kind of legislation that should get a hearing very late in the session, just to let the freaks have their say, and then promptly deep-sixed.
Reply »
The House is Not a Home Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas has offices from Austin to El Paso.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Simpson……Can you say “BUM STEER AWARD(S)!!!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Simpson…ok this is the same guy that does NOT want to register pseudophedrine buyers or ban the Salvia plant, due to individual freedoms……..BUT……..he wants to outlaw the use of perfume in public places because he has a relative that is sensitive?
What a joke!
Reply »
Chris Howe Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Anon, Do you seriously lack the higher brain function necessary to distinguish sarcasm and hyperbole? He attempted to amend the smoking ban bill in order to demonstrate the slippery slope of the smoking ban. It was ridicule of the smoking ban, not an argument for sensitivity.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Chris…don’t flatter yourself
Reply »
anita Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
And his sarcastic ridicule was met with absolute disgust from his fellow House members, actually appeared to drive members to Crownover’s cause.
Reply »
Dave Mundy Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
It *was* a joke,goofus. He was trying to show that Crownover’s ban on smoking is just as offensive to personal liberty.
Reply »
Buck says:
Can the Ten Worst list be expanded?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Are you equating boarding an airplane to a medical procedure?
How absurd.
I’ll abstain from this intellectual discussion.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
some people choose to abstain, some people have abstinence chosen for them.
Reply »
anita says:
A quiz for you, JBB. What’s a bigger threat to civil liberties?
1) a person jailed in Texas for a period of years based upon flimsy evidence and poor process, with limited opportunity for meaningful appeal; or
2) a person who chooses to fly having to take their shoes off and walk through a machine before boarding a plane?
If you’re David Simpson, Dan Patrick and the Republican leadership in Texas, it’s #2.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I expected more from this readership. You guys can’t think out of the box, can you? The first true non-partisan House Rep in a long time is here, and you can’t handle it.
Reply »
Chris Howe says:
When did Texans relegate their safety and their security and the security of their family to some bureaucracy that thinks fondling your wife and children make you safer? What poor excuses for men we have today.
Reply »
anita says:
Non-partisan? He’s non-sensical.
Reply »
MonkeyMan says:
If the TSA agent fondles my wife, does that mean I don’t have to? If so, I’ll gladly rack up some frequent flyer miles.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Non-sensical because we have forgotten what it’s like to be in the presence of non-partisanship.
Reply »
anita Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
No, I remember well the Texas House being much less partisan.
Simpson’s just a freak.
Reply »
Rog says:
When did the crazy right become the Terrorists’ best friend. If some lefty liberal had proposed this piece of work, do you suppose anyone on the other side would have supported them. Pure hypocrites.
Reply »
longhorn50 says:
As one of David Simpson’s constituents, this will sum it up for you. He alway was, is now , and will always continue to be…a complete and total idiot!!!! I am overcome with shame that the place I love and call home elected such a moron!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Isn’t this the same place that had Tommy Merrit as State Rep? Seems y’all have an ongoing condition.
Reply »
Gaga says:
I think this may be the first session ever where the Ten Worst list has twenty legislators on it.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I agree. But it won’t be Simpson. Van Taylor wins.
Reply »
Garyfan says:
Arlington Dad — I fly all the time and have been patted down and body scanned many times. It’s the price we all pay for a safe flight. I suggest you send your kids to the grandparents via Greyhound. There is no constitutional right to fly.
Reply »
Chris Howe Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 1:59 am
Yes, there is. There is an unalienable right to travel and there is an unalienable right to contract. Flying is the combination of those two rights.
Just because you don’t value your rights doesn’t mean you get to trample on everyone else’s.
Reply »
Garyfan Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
There is no unalienable right to contract. It’s a two way street — if each party doesn’t agree to the other’s stipulations then the agreement doesn’t happen. If you don’t agree to the airport security procedures then you don’t have to travel by airplane. There are other options.
To insist that traveling by plane is a “right” is to trivialize the concept of what a right is.
Reply »
Chris Howe Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
The Transportation Security Agency is not party to my contract to fly. If Southwest Airlines stipulates that I must be fondled in order to fly on their planes, that’s one thing. However, Gary Kelly is not making the stipulation, Janet Napolitano and John Pistole are.
JohnBernardBooks says:
You liberals are obsessed with Paul’s list. Need I hate remind you the only list that is revelant is the one you make when you’re chosen by the voters.
When you’re one the worst legislators you don’t make that list as many dems found out in Nov.
Reply »
anita says:
Paxton comes to mind for a 10 worst slot. Martinez Fischer as well. Both have made themselves somewhat irrelevant by waging quixotic and impractical battles with the Speaker.
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
Why would Obersturmfueher Murphy WORRY about “unless” the stay were granted? Maybe the omnipotent “Federal” powers aren’t all that omnipotent? If the gropers at TSA continue with their antics, MAYBE enough states can get together (38) to FORCE a limit on their “limitless” power.
Reply »
Bill says:
If TM doesn’t put Carter on the worst list, her colleagues in the House will.
Reply »
Buck says:
Is there a House seat set aside for Crazy Nut from East Texas?
Isn’t that true representation of the people?
Reply »
rw says:
Which federal law does it violate? When was this law passed?
Reply »
Blue says:
“Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it would not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”
Sorry to be blunt, but Janet doesn’t swing near a big enough d**k in DC to cancel all airline flights into and out of Texas.
Reply »
Arlington Dad says:
“a person who chooses to fly having to take their shoes off and walk through a machine before boarding a plane”
Yeah you have no idea what is going on. Try google for “tsa labia” or “miss usa tsa”. Read and watch these women’s testimony of what happened to them. It has nothing to do with taking shoes off. It has to do with people getting their breasts, labia, buttocks, etc. manhandled. And now we aren’t going to take what happened to them seriously? Does it only matter if it happens in Central Park or the workplace?
And no, nobody needs to be subjected to this to make sure the skies are safe. TSA hasn’t caught anyone, not under Bush and not under Obama, and the Feds own audits routinely get weapons past them. Ask google about the TSA failure rate, too. Plenty of mainstream coverage of that out there.
Reply »
Garyfan Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Sorry but breasts, labia, etc aren’t manhandled. They’re womanhandled. Pat downs are same-sex. (Now that would bother a few homophobes out there but that’s a topic for another day.)
The fact that TSA hasn’t caught anyone, doesn’t mean that the system is unnecessary. It may just meant that the system is an effective deterrent.
Reply »
Dave Mundy says:
Just curious where all these Austinites posting on here will move when Texas gains its independence?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
1′ OR ’1′=’1
Reply »