Academic Says USSC misused research in exclusionary rule decision

[Nelson Lund]

I don't see any evidence in Walker's op-ed to support the proposition 
that Scalia "twisted" Walker's argument or engaged in the "misuse of 
evidence." Apparently, Scalia cited Walker for a factual proposition 
that Walker does not disavow but rather reaffirms. Scalia apparently 
never claimed that Walker would agree with anything else that Scalia 
said, or with the outcome of the case. So who is "twisting" whose 
arguments, and "misusing evidence"?

Nelson Lund
George Mason



Frank Cross wrote:

> 
> But at least he was cited
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-walker25jun25,0,2945743.story
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
> or wrongly) forward the messages to others.