Everone is a legal realist.

since none of them were around when the constitution was authored, they really have no clue what the "original intent" was, other than what those authors may have opined elsewhere, and the plain language of the statute.

Here are the facts from the dissent:

Police were pursuing a motor vehicle.  The driver pulled over and immediately fled on foot in the dark.  Police caught only a fleeting glimpse of the suspect: a black man, average height and build, wearing blue jeans and a dark jacket or coat.  Not much to go on  in a largely black neighborhood, but police broadcast a "lookout" giving the description.  They reported the man's height as 5'8" or 5'10", and his weight as 180 to 190 pounds.  About five blocks away, Officer Israel James and three other officers were patrolling in an unmarked Crown Victoria, a car well-known in the area as a police car.  When they heard the report of a black man fleeing, they drove closer to the site.

Two blocks from where the suspect had fled, the officers spotted four black men—ranging in height from 5'6" to 6'4"—conversing peaceably in front of a gas station, at least one of them wearing a black coat.(1)  These were neighborhood residents, who quickly recognized the police car, and one of the men, Vaughan Walker, wanted nothing to do with the police, though he was not involved in any criminal activity.  Even before the police stopped, Walker began walking away—but he didn't get far.  The police  pulled their car part way into the gas station, blocking the entrance, and all four officers "automatically jumped out," Tr. of June 21, 2004 Hr'g at 58, wearing jackets bearing the "MPD" logo, holstered weapons, and handcuffs.  One of the officers told Mr. Walker to stop; the statement was directed at Mr. Walker, but the message to the others, including appellant, was clear enough.  No one attempted to flee.  As Officer Figgeroa approached appellant, appellant said, "I have a gun," or words to that effect.  Officer Figgeroa immediately yelled out "gun," alerting the other officers, who restrained appellant without difficulty and then lifted his shirt, revealing a handgun tucked into his pants.  However, the officer who had earlier broadcast the "lookout" could not identify appellant as the fleeing suspect.

[(1) The testimony regarding the clothes the men were wearing is quite unhelpful.  Officer James testified that their clothes "[f]or the most part" matched the description in the broadcast, Tr. of June 21, 2004 Hr'g at 17, adding that appellant (who is over six feet tall) was wearing a "[b]lack coat and blue jeans," id. at 49.  At one point, the trial judge describes the men as wearing "jeans and a dark shirt," id. at 83; at another point, "blue jeans and a dark jacket," id. at 86.  In neither case is the court's statement supported by specific testimony.]

Appellant was arrested, and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

So the police broadcast an extremely generic description of a "young black guy," the police stop a group of four young black men, one of them walks away, is told to stop despite having nothing to do with the suspect they sought other than "sharing the same racial characteristics as the suspect and being in the vicinity," and upon such a stop, tells the officers (most likely for everyone's safety" that he has a gun.  They arrest him and charge him with, well, having a gun, even though they had no reason to talk to him or stop him from walking away other than "sharing the same racial characteristics as a suspect."

Judge Janice Rogers Brown says this is not the kind of 4th Amendment jurisprudence we want, and TalkLeft agrees?  Regardless of her documented odious views on a variety of subjects, it seems that she's on the side of civil rights here:  simply having the same race as a criminal suspect and being in the same area is not grounds enough to be stopped and questioned.

It seems TalkLeft's summary is exactly the opposite of what the dissent actually says: "reasonable suspicion" is not a license to stop anyone who's young, black, and male.  The majority opinion says it is via stare decisis, but Judge Rogers Brown says no.

Wouldn't TalkLeft normally agree that the police had no business stopping this man?  If so, why is Rogers Brown's dissent such a bad thing?  Or if not, why is this a good stop?  What am I missing here?

Here we have a black female speaking to room of white males, or better to say pandering, politically pandering to these folks in the hopes of getting them to support her.  She's had her eye on the Supreme Court for some time now, and many in the conservative world, white conservatives, black conservatives, find her to be the ideal candidate for a future Supreme Court appointment.