Michael Dorf's analysis of the Hiibel decision is dubious on various grounds. Simply put, the statement that it "does not threaten civil liberties," is just plain too broad. Requiring identification, here oral, is forced involvement with the authorities. The importance of written id will soon be noted, especially if weeding out fake names was required. The "reasonable" suspicion supplied here was a tip, little more. Certain sorts of (innocent) individuals know how easy that can be supplied.
Once the police has your name, they can search their database, and a lot more incriminating stuff can pop up. And, yes, certain places "deserve special protection," such as government offices, private buildings, and sports stadiums. It is quite another matter for people in and around parked cars on public streets to be required to have identification. The threat to civil liberties might be justified, but it is there. How can we properly make a cost/benefit analysis when all costs seem slim, all benefits obvious?
---
The buzz continues that Rep. Richard Gephardt is on Kerry's short list, perhaps more likely to be picked than the likes of Sen. Edwards or Gen. Clark. Why must you torture me, John? Old school when we need new blood [which is why he was replaced as minority leader!], two time loser as a presidential candidate, easily tarred as a liberal on various issues, and going out of his way to support the President (behind the back of the Senate Majority Leader of his own party) in the War Resolution.
If you aren't going to go for someone to give you some Southern (Edwards/Clark) or Southwestern (Richardson) flavor, fine ... but does this work on a cost/benefit basis? Don't quite see it. I hope the buzz is wrong and/or another pick is found. He's not a clear disaster (though the negatives are rather troubling), but many agree that Gephardt is far from ideal. So far, I do not see how they are wrong.