Breaking News...FAR right wing Supreme Court strikes down Miranda rights 5-4

[lawbuff]

My two cents.

If anyone needs their rights read to them then they should be shot on sight. Every American citizen should already know their rights from reading six simple pages the last being the Bill of Rights. Don't they teach this shit in school?

When I was in High school, they never taught that the BoR as ratified and in full force and effect in 1791, did not apply to the states, if I remember correctly.

There are some that still think the passage of the 14th AM in 1868 "automatically" applied the BoR to the states? Not true. I bet the high schools today still do not teach of the incorporation doctrine??

In Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, the great CJ John Marshall penned that the BoR did NOT apply to the states.

The SC makes law, they ammend thier own law, fact of life.

I don't know when you were in high school, but the application of the Bill of Rights to state action was implemented through a series of USSC decisions, some of which were rendered in the 1940's, a few in the 1950's and many of them in the 1960's.

You sound like you disagree with the incorporation doctrine, is that the case? If so, why?

Wolf v. Colorado, 1949, applied the 4th AM to the states, but declined to apply the exclusionary rule. Mapp v. Ohio overruled Wolf in that respect though.

Incorporation started in the 1920's.

What I meant was, I do not believe the incorporation doctrine was ever taught, the teaching was, there was a BoR, and it applied to the states, period.

I am not for or against the theory of "selective" incorporation, but it seems it would have been far less legally complicated if there was ONE ruling to incorporate as there was ONE, Barron, to not incorporate.

Some provisions are still not applicable to the states, per the SC.

States do not have to Indict by grand juries, the Vicinage clause is not applicable, the excessive bail provision of the 8th is not applicable.

 

[George Costanza]

What I meant was, I do not believe the incorporation doctrine was ever taught, the teaching was, there was a BoR, and it applied to the states, period.

I was in high school in the 1950's. I remember being taught that there WAS a Bill of Rights and what it was. I do not remember being taught whether or not it applied to the states. At that time, much of it did not.

I was in law school in the 1960's. Those were exciting times, legally. Many landmark USSC decisions had just come down or were in the process of being made. The civil rights issue was in the forefront, occasioned largely by what was going on in the South.

I don't think the Forefathers envisioned a situation where the Bill of Rights would be openly flounted by state action. What do you do (as the federal government) when, all of a sudden, states are allowing things to go on that are in clear contravention to the federal constitution? I think that is how (and why) the Incorporation Doctrine came into being.

 

[George Costanza]

I am also very critical of this court because it seems all their 5/4 conservative rulings continue to take AWAY rights from the little guy, the average citizens instead of adding protection.

And this is only the beginning.

I guess statism only applies to liberals when they foolishly believe that incompetent boobs of government can create programs that help people. But when the state arrests, incarcerates and executes human beings, it is extremely competent and efficient.

Bingo.

 

[Liability]

I am also very critical of this court because it seems all their 5/4 conservative rulings continue to take AWAY rights from the little guy, the average citizens instead of adding protection.

And this is only the beginning.

I guess statism only applies to liberals when they foolishly believe that incompetent boobs of government can create programs that help people. But when the state arrests, incarcerates and executes human beings, it is extremely competent and efficient.

Bingo.

Pure tripe.

The decision in that recent case involving Miranda took no rights away from anybody. Much hysteria over nothing. It actually helped SERVE the legitimate and reasonable interests of society.

And there's no "bingo" in anything the dishonest Bfgrn says about "statism." That moron doesn't even understand the meaning of the term which is why he so often misuses and misapplies it. He is the statist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I laugh ever time the Obama Little Blue Dress Brigade calls Conservatives Statists

 

[George Costanza]

I am also very critical of this court because it seems all their 5/4 conservative rulings continue to take AWAY rights from the little guy, the average citizens instead of adding protection.

And this is only the beginning.

I guess statism only applies to liberals when they foolishly believe that incompetent boobs of government can create programs that help people. But when the state arrests, incarcerates and executes human beings, it is extremely competent and efficient.

Bingo.

Pure tripe.

The decision in that recent case involving Miranda took no rights away from anybody. Much hysteria over nothing. It actually helped SERVE the legitimate and reasonable interests of society.

I think not. This recent decision effectively chips away at the Miranda decision, as the courts have been doing for several decades now. To the extent that it does, it is depriving criminal suspects of an effective right.

And there's no "bingo" in anything the dishonest Bfgrn says about "statism." That moron doesn't even understand the meaning of the term which is why he so often misuses and misapplies it. He is the statist.

Bf's statement seems to me to squarely state the way in which conservatives in general view state action. When it is in line with their beliefs (get tough on criminals, support corporations, less taxes), everything is hunky-dory. This kind of stuff, conservative don't recognize as statism - because it is the kind of stuff they get off on. Conversely, when it goes against their grain, then it is "statism."

I'll grant you, that a reverse argument can be made on this whole point and it would probably be true. Liberals do the same thing - characterize what they like in a good light and what they don't like in a bad light.

But let's at least be honest about it, rather than hypocrytical. I suspect that is Bf's real point here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pure tripe.

The decision in that recent case involving Miranda took no rights away from anybody. Much hysteria over nothing. It actually helped SERVE the legitimate and reasonable interests of society.

And there's no "bingo" in anything the dishonest Bfgrn says about "statism." That moron doesn't even understand the meaning of the term which is why he so often misuses and misapplies it. He is the statist.

I have the right to remain silent. Last week I had that right even if I remained silent, now I do not.

If SCOTUS had simply ruled that you cannot claim you did not waive your right to remain silent unless you actually spoke the words I would have any problem with this decision. The guy in this case kept answering questions for whatever reason, and eventually said enough for the cops to claim he made a confession. His lawyer tried to claim he did not waive his right to remain silent, so the confession did not count.

I tend to think that the effects of this decision will be minimal, but I see the potential for it to be abused, and that worries me. This decision gives the state more power, and that makes it statist. Even if you agree with it 100% you have to admit this, or you will be intellectually dishonest, and demonstrate that you are willing to accept sliding definitions of terms based upon arbitrary definitions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And this is only the beginning.



Bingo.

I think not. This recent decision effectively chips away at the Miranda decision, as the courts have been doing for several decades now. To the extent that it does, it is depriving criminal suspects of an effective right.

And there's no "bingo" in anything the dishonest Bfgrn says about "statism." That moron doesn't even understand the meaning of the term which is why he so often misuses and misapplies it. He is the statist.

Bf's statement seems to me to squarely state the way in which conservatives in general view state action. When it is in line with their beliefs (get tough on criminals, support corporations, less taxes), everything is hunky-dory. This kind of stuff, conservative don't recognize as statism - because it is the kind of stuff they get off on. Conversely, when it goes against their grain, then it is "statism."

I'll grant you, that a reverse argument can be made on this whole point and it would probably be true. Liberals do the same thing - characterize what they like in a good light and what they don't like in a bad light.

But let's at least be honest about it, rather than hypocrytical. I suspect that is Bf's real point here.

Several decades? How old do you think Miranda is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's nothing "Statist" about the ruling. Unlike the lying title, Miranda still stands! The case was a Hail Mary attempt to get a legitimate confession tossed out.

 

[Modbert]

Several decades? How old do you think Miranda is?

A decade is 10 years Frank.

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for rape and kidnapping. (Miranda was subsequently retried, found guilty and sentenced to 20–30 years.)

I would consider the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, and the last half of the 60's to add up to several decades.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Several decades? How old do you think Miranda is?

A decade is 10 years Frank.

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for rape and kidnapping. (Miranda was subsequently retried, found guilty and sentenced to 20–30 years.)

I would consider the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, and the last half of the 60's to add up to several decades.

So "Several" decades means SCOTUS has been trying to overrule Miranda since they passed it, correct?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So "Several" decades means SCOTUS has been trying to overrule Miranda since they passed it, correct?

Dickerson v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[George Costanza]

I think not. This recent decision effectively chips away at the Miranda decision, as the courts have been doing for several decades now. To the extent that it does, it is depriving criminal suspects of an effective right.



Bf's statement seems to me to squarely state the way in which conservatives in general view state action. When it is in line with their beliefs (get tough on criminals, support corporations, less taxes), everything is hunky-dory. This kind of stuff, conservative don't recognize as statism - because it is the kind of stuff they get off on. Conversely, when it goes against their grain, then it is "statism."

I'll grant you, that a reverse argument can be made on this whole point and it would probably be true. Liberals do the same thing - characterize what they like in a good light and what they don't like in a bad light.

But let's at least be honest about it, rather than hypocrytical. I suspect that is Bf's real point here.

Several decades? How old do you think Miranda is?

It was decided in 1966. How old do YOU think it is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Several decades? How old do you think Miranda is?

It was decided in 1966. How old do YOU think it is?

Several decades old.

 

[Angelhair]

Several decades? How old do you think Miranda is?

It was decided in 1966. How old do YOU think it is?

Let's see...let's subtract 1966 from 2010 = ??????

 

[George Costanza]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vetg7vWitTU[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Several decades? How old do you think Miranda is?

It was decided in 1966. How old do YOU think it is?

You make it sounds as if Miranda goes back to Hammurabi and people have been trying to overturn it for the last several decades when in fact the law is only "Several decades" old.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was decided in 1966. How old do YOU think it is?

You make it sounds as if Miranda goes back to Hammurabi and people have bee trying to overturn if for the last several decades when in fact the law is only "Several decades" old.

And Congress wrote a law to overturn it within a year, which means people have been trying to overturn it for several decades.

 

[George Costanza]

It was decided in 1966. How old do YOU think it is?

You make it sounds as if Miranda goes back to Hammurabi and people have bee trying to overturn if for the last several decades when in fact the law is only "Several decades" old.

Frank, Frank, Frank . . . where I come from, "several" means TWO. (Play the Tom Lehrer video.)

1966 was FOUR decades plus, ago - believe me, I know; I have lived it all and much more.

It isn't that "people" have been "trying to overturn it." Conservative courts have been trying to restrict its force with considerable success, but I doubt that Miranda itself will ever be "overturned" unless our bat-shit, right wing Supreme Court takes it into their little neocon minds to do away with the excusionary rule entirely, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

But present-day Miranda ain't what it used to be. This latest debacle by The Supremes is but one example. I'll give you another:

Cops interrogate the suspect and never give him his Miranda rights. He makes all kind of incriminating statements. Will those statements be excluded at trial? Wellll . . . maybe. If the defendant does not testify, then the prosecution cannot get the statements in. But if he does testify, then the non-Mirandized statements which he gave to the police CAN be used against him by way of impeachment. Oregon v. Elstad 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

So what did you THINK was supposed to happen? Guy sits there and doesn't answer the question, and the cops are supposed to say, "Oh, he's invoking his right to remain silent. Guess we'd better stop asking him anything and leave him alone"? And yeah, if you suddenly decide to stand up and scream, "I did it! I killed all those people!" I'd call that deciding to waive your right to silence.

You have the right not to answer the questions. No one ever said you had the right not to be asked anything. Just don't talk. How hard is that?

I'm gonna tell you, the chicks who've been on the Supreme Court so far make the rest of us look bad.