Because the Constitution totally says that people have substantive right to possess and use drugs. It's right there in the Eleventy-First Amendment!

(Pro tip: If there are laws you don't agree with, the place to address them is the Legislature, not the Court.)

A bullet can also enter a person who has not committed a crime when given a cue by its "handler." Any useful tool can be manipulated by an unethical cop. We either have to live with the fact that useful tools will sometimes be manipulated by corrupt cops, or we have to live without any cops at all. People may disagree on which is better, but those are basically our options.

Regarding your motion, I don't think it would go very far. The fact that the dog can be manipulated doesn't mean that it was in this particular case. It's going to be doubly hard to get the evidence suppressed if the dog alerted on drugs, and it turns out that your client did, in fact, have drugs on his person. "Yes, your honor, this dog is trained to detect drugs, and he did signal that he smelled drugs on my client, but I submit that in fact this dog that is specifically trained to smell drugs didn't actually smell the drugs my client actually had on his person, but was instead responding to a covert signal provided by the arresting officer." You might do better if the dog triggered for drugs, and what the officer actually found was an illegal weapon or something.

Reaching back to law school memories here, but I recall a case (decided in the 80s or 90s?) where the Court ruled that drug-sniffing dogs do not require any suspicion, because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the scent of drugs coming from your stuff. So this ruling just addresses a follow-on question: If the police are permitted to use drug-sniffing dogs at will, can they also detain you without reasonable suspicion and make you wait around for the dog to show up. The answer was a very reasonable "no." If they don't have evidence that you've done something wrong, they can't detain you.

I think this rule is reasonable on both counts. The Fourth Amendment doesn't give you a substantive right to commit crimes and not be found out. It only protects you from unreasonable police procedures. If you are carrying an illegal substance that a dog can detect without invading your privacy, that's your problem. But the police should never be able to detain a citizen for any reason, for any amount of time, without probable cause that the person has committed or is committing a crime. To rule otherwise is to place us in a police state.

Wow, you have a short memory.

That's a cool theory and all, except reality. How do a couple of cameos count as "increased time"? I think the more plausible theory is that Lucas pandered to the audience by making Jar Jar responsible for the rise of the empire.

They should have gotten Bose to design the sound. Then it would have been marketing squared!

How else do you explain WindowsME and Vista?

Prior art for "hell on the internet" goes back to at least Geocities and Hampster[sic] Dance. The best you can do now is patent your own particular variation of hell on the internet.

So behind the times! The hip new kids ask if it runs Crysis. (Alternative: Yo, dawg! We clustered your cluster so you can cluster while you cluster! Also, all your petaflops are belong to us. In Soviet Natalie Portman, Beowulf clusters you! Did I miss anything?)

And here we get to the real point, and why you and I will never agree. You see taxes as a weapon to punish the wealthy and successful. But I have no faith in your socialistic gospel of envy and class warfare. Government should not be concerned with redistributing wealth (which is almost wholly unrelated to the legitimate social responsibility of caring for the poor and needy). Nor should it be concerned with protecting and enhancing the wealth of the already wealthy. Since our current government, like a madman, seeks both of these contradictory ends, it is ridiculous and ineffective. Until government ceases to seek these two ends, it will continue to burden us with perpetual debt, regardless of our tax system.

Unless you're Mel, in which case you make awesomely unintuitive and necessarily complex systems to save one or two clock cycles in the inner loop, and become a legend.

You're mixing income tax with consumption tax. If you want to tax income, tax income. But if we're taxing consumption, then those who consume more pay more than those who consume less, and those who consume least because they have the least to spend pay the least in taxes because of the baseline exemption. The upper middle class guy who's busting his butt to pay off his student loans, and who saves as much as he can, is not going to pay a disproportionate amount in taxes. (Or are we going to tax his student loan payments as consumption, even though he paid consumption tax while living on those loans? What about deposits in a savings account, or stock purchases? If we're going to do that, we may as well just call it an income tax, because that's what it is.)

If he pays off his student loans and still chooses to live modestly, he continues to pay a low tax rate. If he instead decides to start living large, then he'll start paying more in taxes. Either way, he essentially chooses his tax bracket, because he chooses every day what to buy, and how much to spend on it. This is especially true if we're giving him a front-loaded exemption on expected costs for rent and groceries. In other words, we're not taxing him for living, eating, and having shelter, and we're not taxing him for working and earning money. We're taxing whatever life style he chooses above and beyond the baseline. This tax is progressive in that people who choose to live modestly or who cannot afford to live extravagantly pay very little in taxes. Those who are able and choose to live extravagantly pay much more in taxes. Yes, you could have a billionaire who pays no taxes because he chooses to live in an efficiency and drive an '86 Yugo. That's only a problem if you believe that the government owns all income, and is naturally entitled to its "fair share," because class warfare or whatever. I prefer the tax theory of take from people the very least necessary for government to function. And I suspect there would be very few billionaires living tax free under this system, because it has an actual lifestyle cost to them. The only cost now for billionaires to live tax-free is they pay their accountants and lawyers $900/hour to get creative with shell entities.