Bricker never wears white socks with black shoes.
Bricker is never seen drinking cappuccino in Italian restaurants with oriental women.
“Legal” and “right” are two different debates. Many times they are conflated and pointing out the distinction is helpful.
As far as the tu quoque, I don’t see him doing that. More than a few people need to look up the term, as they use it sloppily. What he does do is try to get the person railing to the high heavens about the conduct of Republican X to state whether it is the act itself they object to or Republican X.
Both of things attempt to define the terms of what is being debated more tightly. And that is helpful to any debate.
True, but great like that. Even the title is subtly meta.
Bricker always covers his mouth with his arm when he sneezes.
It sounds like you are giving him credit for his liberal qualities, like agreeing with logic when he actually does agree with logic. And for liking Obama from time to time. Well, must of us do that. We don’t get a pat on the back for being liberals, or criticizing the government when it tortures unindicted foreigners.
But as also noted, he’s something of a disingenuous arguer on many topics. It’s like he plays word games just to keep at top form in stereotypical dickish lawyer behavior. Now I’m all for stereotytpical diskish lawyer behavior, but without a live audience in the form of a clerk, reporter and judge to roll my eyes at.
Incidentally, I do generally love his columns on legal subjects. He’d be a great law professor for first year law students.
I don’t see logic as a liberal position, myself.
Yeeeeeeaaahhh.
Bricker, Bricker, roly poly Bricker,
Bricker, Bricker, tu quoque, yum!
IMO, Bricker serves a good purpose here, arguing the legals when the “what’s right” appears obvious. I am sure that in the case of many of the things Bricker disputes and nitpicks, he has a personal moral opinion that isn’t far from those of us who are saying “illegal this” or “illegal that” - but he reminds us that just because we think things are illegal, or should be illegal, they’re not necessarily so. I would imagine he’d go down a lot better were he to say stuff like “while I personally believe that cutting children’s thumbs off is wrong, you’ll find that in Daumenlutscher vs Scissor-Wielding Tailor, it was established that this is a constitutionally sound punishment for thumb sucking”.
Logic is traditionally a liberal art. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ240797&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ240797
I think many posters here think of Bricker as they want him to be, or as he was a while ago, not as he is now.
I would be surprised if many posters want any other posters to be something.
Bricker does not always drink beer.
But when he does, he drinks Dos Equis.
I don’t do “subtle” pittings.
John Mace smells only faintly of fish.
Nah, his stated “hobby” is malt scotch.
Here he is in a rare photo, gearing up for a session of correcting the gross misapprehensions of Dopers.
Hah! Love it. The bolded part is classic Bricker. 
Just my humble opinion here: Bricker can be really annoying at times, and he is in the thread about the golf-club-wielding drug user shot by a cop, but this board would be much worse without him.
Bricker would probably correctly identify Marquess of Queensberry Rules. 
Actually, I’ve always pictured him as a Hispanic David Niven.
No, I did a Google Image search, and found this picture of Bricker, reacting to one of the poorly worded “Liberal” assertions on the Straight Dope.
