Reply #208: Sure... here's where you

[LooseWilly]

"refused to post a link": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1115782&mesg_id=1116444

(technically, you chose not to post a link to something you were exhorting someone to read... repeatedly, if you follow the thread).

If another poster already posted a link... then why not at least indicate that? Maybe a link to the post in which the link is posted? But no, you exhort others to read something that you will not provide them... in effect exhorting them to go to the effort to search the internet for the thing you would have them read, and then have them read it... doubling the work they must go through in order to satisfy your unsupported arguments.

Speaking of "unsupported arguments"... the rest of your post is a wonderful example.

"Do you see police misconduct? " — YES... I was very explicit in laying out the misconduct I saw. Your response?— "I don't." So why don't you explain why it is not police misconduct to kick down the wrong door in pursuit of a suspect, and then scoop up evidence that they had no search warrant for, in order to arrest the occupants?

"Because the facts of the case warranted it."?? —What Facts Warranted It?? I have made a case that Alito's majority opinion is bad legal precedent... but all you have done is try to say that 3 "reliably liberal justices" (a point that I do not concede, as Kagan and Sotomayor have not been on the court long enough to be anything more than tentative liberal justices... and in fact have been more reliably centrist and only occasionally liberal... and Breyer is "known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer) not for being liberal) joined the majority.

Have you read the decision? "8-1 is pretty convincing." is not an argument that convinces me that you have read the decision... it sounds like the argument of someone who actually believes that judges are "liberal" because someone said so and can't be bothered to actually look at the facts and judge for him/her self.

How about you follow your own advice and read the decision and explain why you think "the facts of the case warranted it", with some actual factual support for your argument? Dude...