More bloody likely in 1933.

No, you won't get health care from the government, or insurance. Nope. Thanks to the law, you'll have to buy it for yourself, even if you don't want/need it. Of course, it was just so gov't actuaries could claim that most/all of the populace is insured and it looks good on paper. Thanks Barry.

Into BDSM much? Slashdot BDSM is probably far more extreme than normal BDSM.

It's an extremely valid concern. If I disagree with the Gov't's actions, I can't exactly take my business elsewhere, can I? Sure, I can go find another one, but I can't go without one, or start my own (with the idea of doing it right). A private company can't fine me, put me in jail, nor can it execute me. The government can. That's why I usually direct concerns at governance about really great technology (it is really cool). But I don't want it turned against me. And if the government turns it against me, it's far more likely to be successful.

Apparently the Flamebait mod is now given to people who disagree with the Party...

No, their job is to interpret the Constitution when a major question arises. Their job doesn't require them take into account precedent, though they usually do. (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/g/stare_decisis.htm)

The principle of judicial review was established by Marbury V. Madison in 1803 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States). It didn't establish Stare Decisis (precedents).

As a rule, lower courts have to abide by the decisions handed down from a higher court, but a court can reverse a decision it made earlier. Not only this, but a decision handed down in a district only applies in that district (however, other districts may adopt the reasoning). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)

The SCOTUS has jurisdiction over all of the federal courts (not the state ones). However, SCOTUS decisions are usually applied to state courts via 14th amendment mechanisms. The SCOTUS usually does respect decisions it made previously, but there is nothing to prevent it from reversing its stance. (http://www.rbs2.com/overrule.pdf)

I'm reasonably sure the TSA isn't selling scans of people for a profit (or at all). You may want to consider filing suit against airports, banks, and gas stations, since they're usually all equipped with cameras, and aren't typically constrained by regulations about how to handle that stuff.

Likewise, them having an image of you could be considered in the same manner as someone taking a picture of a known landmark (Eiffel Tower comes to mind). Sure, the owners of the landmark will scream about wanting royalties, but as long as the picture isn't being used for commercial purposes (fair use), there aren't any grounds for to bring suit.

That said, I don't particularly cotton to the way things are being done in airports and other "secure" environments. That's why I'm a proud contributor to airlines' falling profit margins (contributing to their fall, not to their survival).

So, what you're saying is that if you were the one in the scanner, your co-workers wouldn't have been making fun of your small dick, but would've been masturbating to it, and you wouldn't have been fired?

This is called the Streisand Effect with Negrin Corollary.

You would know that I don't know how to read a parenthetical statement, wouldn't you? I'm awestruck at your skill at word-smithing and grammar-handling, and evaluating the skills of others, all based on a single occurrence of someone misreading a statement. Where ever did you get your BE in English? The City College of San Francisco?

I misread it. As a result, the statement was ambiguous to me. I don't know how much simpler I can make this phrase. Let me try: Misread something, interpreted based on misreading, interpretation incorrect.

Does this compute yet?

Point taken. I had misread the original statement as stating that 47 states allowed it, and 7 with exceptions allowing for it.