Michael Greenberger, law professor and director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health and Homeland Security, said the ruling could have broader implications if it is used to challenge aspects of the Patriot Act.

It was surprising, he said, coming from the conservative-leaning 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, but the opinion was "very well-reasoned" and reflected "conventional application of constitutional principles."

What's to be surprised about? Therein lies the difference between true judicial conservatism and the reactionary judicial in-activism demanded by the RadCons -- by which I mean, screaming when judges refuse to roll over and play dead while they legislate us back to the Feudal Age.

First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams said that though there are steps the government can take to protect people from terrorism, "that doesn't mean we just dispense with the Bill of Rights as a consequence of 9/11."

"We don't yet live in a society in which everyone must always go through metal detectors everywhere we go."

God willing, we'll be able to take "yet" out of that statement.