Interesting how many people can do that. : ) Also interesting how you can assume a lot of things about me, what I hear and what I'm paying attention to.
Based on the quality of what you've written above... many things can be gleamed... such as the fact that you are not a lawyer... and probably not very good at whatever job you do ("Nyeh, but my boss says I do a good job"). Heck, a quick read of a number of your comments on this wider thread indicate a sort of "it seems reasonable to me if I don't agree with them" sort of mentality... typical for a less than bright leftist (an oxymoron I know).
Uh-huh, sure. But haven't you heard MORE tea-partiers be completely anti-tax, than any other political groups even half their size?
And thus, since a randomly-selected tea partier is *more likely* to be completely anti-tax than a member of any other large political group I can think of, that's why the IRS would conceive of profiling them.
Ahh hearsay... so much fun!
You know... a black person is more likely to be convicted and sentenced to jail for a drug crime than a white... by your logic... or as you would say "and thus"... wouldn't any randomly selected black person be more likely to be engaged in the drug trade than a white "and thus" be fair game for further scrutiny?
As I said elsewhere... if that scrutiny is simply a second look... few would have a problem... if however that scrutiny enters the territory of being unduly invasive... then no, it's generally not permitted.
The lawyer of any person picked up under such a situation would first play the 'racial profiling' card and attempt to force the police to show that they are not randomly stopping/frisking/etc a disproportionate number of black people (or at least is smart enough to frisk enough white, yellow, green and blue people to make the black frisks not seem out of line) or that there was more than just the skin color of the person at play.
Of course this also ignores the fact that you are creating an interesting excuse for guilt by association... if a small number of people who choose to freely associate themselves with a larger group (ie Tea Party) and individually these small number of people spout a specific view ("taxing is unconstitutional, mkay!")... then the entire group is subject to further invasive attention because of the views of these people that the larger group did not strongly condemn and exercise from the larger group.
"But Muslims! What about how we treat Muslims! Only a small fraction of Muslims purport radical ideology and an acceptance of violence" some would say... which would be a fair point... if we required a good number of Muslim groups (or individuals) to jump through the same hoops that these Tea Party groups were illegally required to based on nothing more than the view of some cop or IRS agent.
And oddly enough... the # of people running planes into buildings, setting off bombs near the finish lines of marathons, attempt to set off car bombs in times square, plot to blow up airports, or engaging in 'work place violence' on a military base and who espouse anti-tax ideas is remarkably low.