It's an interesting argument. Is there a highly-credible, authoritative source? Maybe someone like the EFF or ACLU? There are lots of ideas online about the law, of varying credibility, and I'd hesitate to risk a lawsuit over Internet advice.
It's an interesting argument. Is there a highly-credible, authoritative source? Maybe someone like the EFF or ACLU? There are lots of ideas online about the law, of varying credibility, and I'd hesitate to risk a lawsuit over Internet advice.
While I concur with your hesitation, my first reaction on hearing about the fee was "Didn't they say you couldn't fly without a realid? Why am I able to fly without one then?" The idea that they may not be able to bar you without one jives with how this is playing out. Another commenter in this post also mentioned flying without id, which I also thought wasn't possible.
If you don't have Real ID they perform an equivalent background check at the airport which they charge you $45 for.
But it's something they're choosing to do, not something that is required.
The author has been qualified as an expert witness in several venues.
Expert witnesses are not reliably credible authorities. They are people with credentials hired to help win lawsuits. I'm sure the author knows more than I do, but that doesn't say much.
It's not about his testimony on this particular issue. In fact, it does not appear that he has given any. It's about his qualifications to potentially testify. Even so, in American courts (in which he has previously qualified,) the qualification process is adversarial and involves both direct and cross-examination, so if he wasn't actually qualified, the opposing party would certainly argue as much.
The reality of expert witnesses is not that they are authoritative sources outside the courtroom, but witnesses for one party. It's a job - sometimes for people who didn't find much success in their field - and they are paid by the party that calls them to testify.
Everything in a US courtroom is adversarial; every witness is cross-examined and their credibility can be questioned.
>witnesses for one party
>every witness is cross-examined and their credibility can be questioned
I think we're talking about different stages. The determination of his qualifications happens before he can be a witness for one party. I'm talking about voir dire. Before we even get him on the stand, there's a separate hearing to determine if he can even be an expert witness, and the opposing party can challenge.
Anyway, there is no ongoing action that I can find. It's only just come into effect, so that's to be expected. As far as an authoritative source for the argument: the person we're discussing is actually the author.