Wow, I am not the one calling myself a JD who goes around spouting caseses that he apparently forgot to read.
I think by every definition of the word you are the hack. You have:
1. Put words in the mouths of others and then beat them up for it.
2. Rested on an argument to authority - your supposed JD - and stated you should not have to bother responding to anyone who does not have one.
3. Put words in the mouths of various Supreme Court Justices they did not utter.
4. Spewed off a number of cites to cases and statutes that do not say what you say they say, because apparently you never read them.
5. Put together an impossible to follow argument about why I am wrong in quoting verbatim from the text of the cases that you attempt to rely upon for your claim that TSA agents can go fingering little girls.
No, you are done here. If you want to argue your point, like a good attorney, argue your point like a good attorney.
In brief, your legal scholarship stinks like a 20 day beached whale.
You keep saying that, but it's pretty obvious that your contention is without merit. Not only did I read the case, I pointed out why you pulling dicta from them was irrelevant. I explained to you several times why I cited to Carroll, you are apparently too stupid to figure out why, even when it was explained to you.
2. Rested on an argument to authority - your supposed JD - and stated you should not have to bother responding to anyone who does not have one.
I never said that. Thus, it is pretty obvious that you are merely projecting. I told a specific poster to come back and talk to me after they got a JD, because it was obvious that they don't know the law. I never applied that statement to everyone. So now, you are a liar.
3. Put words in the mouths of various Supreme Court Justices they did not utter.
You are lying again. I cited numerous cases to you. You are just too stupid to figure out how to apply the cases. I guess I should have known better than to try to reason with someone who can't even put together a coherent post. The Supreme Court has express
4. Spewed off a number of cites to cases and statutes that do not say what you say they say, because apparently you never read them.
You are lying again. I cited each case to prove a specific point. I cited one very specific case to you several times that deals DIRECTLY with the subject of airport searches, and you have continually ignored it, because it has you dead to rights and you know it.
5. Put together an impossible to follow argument about why I am wrong in quoting verbatim from the text of the cases that you attempt to rely upon for your claim that TSA agents can go fingering little girls.
You keep making this outrageous charge, one that is utterly baseless. No TSA agent has "fingered a little girl." I think that fact that you would dream up such a thing tells us a whole lot about where you mind is, and what warped fantasies you dream about. As for my point being "impossible to follow", that only applies if you have the mindset of a 7 year old.
As I already explained to you, a poster earlier in the thread made the absurd contention that ALL searches, everywhere require both probable cause and a warrant. I cited Carroll specifically to point out that this contention was mistaken. That officers who search an automobile do not need to have a warrant. Thus, this negates the contention that ALL searches require a warrant. You grabbed onto some dicta in Carroll and are apparently under the assumption that ALL searches require probable cause. I pointed out to you numerous examples of searches that require less than probable cause. ONE of the exceptions is an administrative search, in which airport searches are classified. I cited a case to you numerous times that deals DIRECTLY with airport searches, and you have ignored it, because you know that you have been caught in a lie and exposed as ignorant. Now you are desperately projecting in an attempt to cover your tracks.
No, you are done here. If you want to argue your point, like a good attorney, argue your point like a good attorney. In brief, your legal scholarship stinks like a 20 day beached whale.