DOJ blocks Texas Legislation

[muff528 3]

clicky

“If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute,” Murphy wrote. “Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

Is DOJ setting an unattainable standard for TSA here? Is the attorney saying that without the proposed Texas law that safety is being ensured and that canceling flights is not necessary? Would TSA and/or DOJ be held responsible for their failure to ensure safety for any other reason in the event of a terrorist attack? The simple fact that a terrorist attack occurs would mean that they failed to ensure safety in some way. (Of course they couldn't be held responsible in any real sense ..."sovereign immunity". It would only be the "Janet Reno" type of accepting responsibility ..."OK, I fucked up, people died, let's move on". Well, words to that effect. Responsibility without Accountability.)

[Andy9o8 3]

There's an old saying: If the foo shits, wear it.

This is a dispute over Federal versus state jurisdiction. Lordy knows, when somebody bitches long and loud about Federal trampling of "states' rights", it's probably safe to bet that that bitching is coming from a state in the Deep South (including Texas).

Well, this is the shoe on the other foot. As I mentioned in the other recent thread about this Texas law, airspace and the control of airports, especially those servicing interstate aviation, are Federal jurisdiction, pretty much exclusively. The Texas law violates some fairly basic principles of Federal preemption. I sympathize with the Texans' motives, but they're stepping on Federal exclusive jurisdiction, similar to the way the Arizona immigration law probably steps on Federal exclusive jurisdiction.

So the Feds are pushing back when their turf is stepped on, just as states howl and use the courts (sometimes successfully) to push back when the Federal govt steps on state turf.

[muff528 3]

Quote

There's an old saying: If the foo shits, wear it.

This is a dispute over Federal versus state jurisdiction. Lordy knows, when somebody bitches long and loud about Federal trampling of "states' rights", it's probably safe to bet that that bitching is coming from a state in the Deep South (including Texas).

Well, this is the shoe on the other foot. As I mentioned in the other recent thread about this Texas law, airspace and the control of airports, especially those servicing interstate aviation, are Federal jurisdiction, pretty much exclusively. The Texas law violates some fairly basic principles of Federal preemption. I sympathize with the Texans' motives, but they're stepping on Federal exclusive jurisdiction, similar to the way the Arizona immigration law probably steps on Federal exclusive jurisdiction.

So the Feds are pushing back when their turf is stepped on, just as states howl and use the courts (sometimes successfully) to push back when the Federal govt steps on state turf.

Yeah, you pretty much made those points clear in an earlier thread a few weeks ago about State laws vs. Fed laws and preemption, etc. I do think it is a good thing that these conflicts get tested from both directions.

But my question was more about the wording of Murphy's letter and his statement that the proposed Texas law would cause them to lose the ability to ensure airline safety that (by implication) they have now. IOW, They can presently ensure (guarantee) safety and will allow flights but the Texas law would remove that existing ability to ensure safety. So any terrorist action that occurs would be because of their failure to foresee the security hole that allowed the attack. It gives the impression that, since they now allow flights, they have it covered

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But my question was more about the wording of Murphy's letter and his statement that the proposed Texas law would cause them to lose the ability to ensure airline safety that (by implication) they have now. IOW, They can presently ensure (guarantee) safety and will allow flights but the Texas law would remove that existing ability to ensure safety. So any terrorist action that occurs would be because of their failure to foresee the security hole that allowed the attack. It gives the impression that, since they now allow flights, they have it covered

I think you're over analyzing that remark.

I administer over a 1000 servers, mostly Sun, some linux. They're used to manage trillions (literally) of dollars. While the primary focus of my group is to facilitate business operations (make money), we do have obligations to maintain a secure environment, driven both by professionalism and an angry mob of government regulators.

Some users would love to have root access, and some of them are even qualified to have it. But giving them that removes our ability to ensure a secure environment. That's not a guarantee that nothing bad will happen, but we cannot possibly succeed if we grant this to outsiders.

And that is the DOJ claim.

[billvon 3,173]

>Would TSA and/or DOJ be held responsible for their failure to ensure
>safety for any other reason in the event of a terrorist attack?

No.

You probably sometimes get letters from your insurance company that say something like "to ensure continued automobile insurance coverage please pay by May 15th." If you pay, then buy a truck for your business and get into an accident, you can't claim "but you said you would ENSURE my coverage if I paid, and I paid!"

[muff528 3]

Well, the topic is just not as interesting to me now as it was this morning anyway.