The phrase that comes to mind is “all hat, no cattle.” It refers to someone who tries to give the appearance of being something, but has nothing behind him, whether that’s guts, skill or, well, cattle. And it’s not something you want to be called, especially not in Texas.
Which is what makes it all the more laughable that Texas Senator, Republican Dan Patrick, can be found hiding in a dark corner of the capital, squirming and weeping, pleading to no one to not hurt him. You see, Patrick wore a big hat, proposing a law to stop the TSA from groping its children and wimmenfolk:
Texas has its own bill in the legislature, HB 1937, which also makes it a sex assault (again, a felony subject to sex-offender registration) “as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly [to] search[] another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and [to] touch[] the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.
Ah, Patrick was tough, the man who would face down the federal government and let them know that they’re sick rules and procedures wouldn’t be tolerated in the great Republic of Texas.
But then John E. Murphy the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, shot off a letter, which Mark Bennett succinctly describes:
So a federal government lawyer (whose job it isn’t) threatens vaguely that TSA (which he neither works for nor runs) “would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew” (note Murphy’s explicit false premises: that groping is a) “required under federal regulations”; b) “in order to ensure the safety of the American public”), and the Texas Legislature caves in. They don’t even hold out for a threat from someone with the actual power to make the decisions, much less a concrete threat.
It’s like someone turned the light on and all the roaches scattered. So tough until someone, even someone without any power to actually do anything, says, “boo!” And suddenly, it’s revealed that Dan Patrick’s just another guy with a big hat and no cattle. Via Kash Hill :
Republican Dan Patrick, who was the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, withdrew it when he realized he would not have the votes he needed to pass it. “There was a time in this state, there was a time in our history, where we stood up to the federal government and we did not cower to rules and policies that invaded the privacy of Texans,” he said with regret, reports the Texas Tribune. No last stand for Texas this week.
He could have stood firm and squared off with his chicken compadres in the Senate, telling them that the molestation of Texans at their airports was on their heads. If the bill lost, it lost. So what? Let someone else play the coward, running scared of some TSA tough guys who want to get too close to children.
But he blinked. Dan Patrick was all filled with tough talk until the moment Murphy called on him to put up or shut up. And now he’s hiding in the corner, quivering like jello and covered by his big, empty hat.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Granted that the TX move was stupid, but I’m having trouble understanding under what authority TSA has the power to ban flights to any state. Other agencies might ground flights for a variety of reasons, but TSA? When did we give cops that power?
And this is the same Dan Patrick who got the Texas Lege to pass (and Guv. Good Hair to sign) legislation requiring women to undergo vaginal sonograms before they can seek abortions.
Government groping before boarding airplanes? No! State-required vaginal sonograms? Si!
Irony, anyone?
Susan DeQuesnay Bankston, proprietor of Juanita Jean’s, the World’s Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, has more on this travesty.
[Ed. Note: While this link would ordinarily be deleted as against the rules, this commenter gets special dispensation.]
John, which Tx. move was stupid? Proposing the bill or backing down?
Prolly would have been best to use the “reply to this” link if you wanted an answer.
I can’t imagine the TSA having anything to do with it, but maybe Dan Patrick was never good with connecting up letters to concepts.
By the way, John, Jerri left you a question below. Think carefully before you answer.
I realized that after I clicked.
Happens. I’ll try to make sure John sees it. Frankly, I think he was referring to something about the Alamo, but can’t be sure.
Thanks. I’m curious because I have been involved with the group behind this bill. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I know a few who thought the bill wouldn’t work. I thought they had good points, but I still supported the bill for the public push back effect.
Until John gets around to answering, I’ll give you my thoughts. It’s unlikely that this law would have any effect. On its best day, it would seem subject to federal pre-emption and sovereign immunity. On its worst day, it would cause a constitutional crisis. Either way, I can’t imagine it being viable.
That said, it’s the best way for states to assert their sovereignty and register their disapproval of TSA conduct. Even if it didn’t quite work, it would have sent a clear message, one that needs to be sent. Ironically, Patrick’s wimping out sent preciesly the opposite message, about the state’s impotence in fighting federal overreaching.
Supposedly he is going to be attaching it as an amendment to other legislation. I can’t tell if he is faking all this to make his nemesis Dewhurst look bad, or if he is sincere. Right now, we look like a laughing stock.
The great Republic of Texas isn’t looking its best today. If tomorrow, they ban barbecue because it’s got too much salt, it won’t help.