BREAKING NEWS! Obama orders Holder to support eliminating Miranda rights

[RetiredGySgt]

The latest news everyone is aghast at is that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to limit Miranda rights. What they fail to mention when accusing the Court of being far right for that ruling is that Eric Holder , the Attorney General of the United States, ordered his Department and it's lawyers, to argue for that limit.

Holder works for Obama. Obama approves of the actions of our Justice Department fighting to limit Miranda rights and all the left can do is complain that the Supreme Court is to blame. Usual idiocy of the left.

 

[Luissa]

Do you have an article backing up your claim?
And from what I heard, really all the Supreme Court did is decide you have to say you are remaining silent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you have an article backing up your claim?
And from what I heard, really all the Supreme Court did is decide you have to say you are remaining silent.

Are you mentally deficient?

 

[Luissa]

Do you have an article backing up your claim?
And from what I heard, really all the Supreme Court did is decide you have to say you are remaining silent.

Are you mentally deficient?

I bet if you go to the thread where this was first posted about a month ago, you will find some liberals defending Obama.
And RGS I will remind you many of us know of your issues, and never bring it into the conversation out of respect. Why don't you show some respect back.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you have an article backing up your claim?
And from what I heard, really all the Supreme Court did is decide you have to say you are remaining silent.

Are you mentally deficient?

I bet if you go to the thread where this was first posted about a month ago, you will find some liberals defending Obama.
And RGS I will remind you many of us know of your issues, and never bring it into the conversation out of respect. Why don't you show some respect back.

What issues would that be? And how are they relevant to the fact the US Government assisted in this decision?

 

[California Girl]

Do you have an article backing up your claim?
And from what I heard, really all the Supreme Court did is decide you have to say you are remaining silent.

Wouldn't be fantastic if some of the forum whackjobs (on both sides) would avail themselves of that right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you have an article backing up your claim?
And from what I heard, really all the Supreme Court did is decide you have to say you are remaining silent.

Wouldn't be fantastic if some of the forum whackjobs (on both sides) would avail themselves of that right?

What right is that? To spoon feed the mental defective about events that occurred and have been reported on by the press and are common Knowledge? Some bar there.

Michigan argued the case and was supported by the US Government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Berghuis v. Thompkins , U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

Brief in support of petitioner. The petitioner being the State of Michigan.

The US Government supported Michigan.

Berghuis v. Thompkins - ScotusWiki

Again the US Government supported the Petitioner, the State of Michigan.

There are many more, do you need more? Or are these two enough for even your pea brain to absorb?

 

[California Girl]

Do you have an article backing up your claim?
And from what I heard, really all the Supreme Court did is decide you have to say you are remaining silent.

Wouldn't be fantastic if some of the forum whackjobs (on both sides) would avail themselves of that right?

What right is that? To spoon feed the mental defective about events that occurred and have been reported on by the press and are common Knowledge? Some bar there.

Michigan argued the case and was supported by the US Government.

The right to remain silent.... or, STFU. (Not you necessarily - just the forum whackjobs).

 

[George Costanza]

Whack-a-doodle thread, RGS. Give it up.

 

[Father Time]

Do you have an article backing up your claim?
And from what I heard, really all the Supreme Court did is decide you have to say you are remaining silent.

Wouldn't be fantastic if some of the forum whackjobs (on both sides) would avail themselves of that right?

What right is that? To spoon feed the mental defective about events that occurred and have been reported on by the press and are common Knowledge? Some bar there.

Michigan argued the case and was supported by the US Government.

So is it breaking news as the title suggests or is it common knowledge?

 

[Oddball]

BREAKING NEWS! Obama orders Holder to support eliminating Miranda rights

Nope....Not a dime's worth of difference.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Whack-a-doodle thread, RGS. Give it up.

Already post two links that PROVE the US Government supported Michigan in the case. Or are you now claiming Obama does not control the US Government?

 

[George Costanza]

Whack-a-doodle thread, RGS. Give it up.

Already post two links that PROVE the US Government supported Michigan in the case. Or are you now claiming Obama does not control the US Government?

What I am claiming, is that this is a whack-a-doodle thread. Give it up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Whack-a-doodle thread, RGS. Give it up.

Already post two links that PROVE the US Government supported Michigan in the case. Or are you now claiming Obama does not control the US Government?

What I am claiming, is that this is a whack-a-doodle thread. Give it up.

What you mean is you can no longer proclaim that the far right is chipping away at Miranda rights when Obama is the one that supported the challenge and supports the outcome. Thanks for playing.

 

[George Costanza]

Already post two links that PROVE the US Government supported Michigan in the case. Or are you now claiming Obama does not control the US Government?

What I am claiming, is that this is a whack-a-doodle thread. Give it up.

What you mean is you can no longer proclaim that the far right is chipping away at Miranda rights when Obama is the one that supported the challenge and supports the outcome. Thanks for playing.

No. I am saying that the premise you are trying to adopt for this thread sucks and so does this thread. In other words, a whack-a-doodle thread, RGS. Give it up.

 

[goldcatt]

Already post two links that PROVE the US Government supported Michigan in the case. Or are you now claiming Obama does not control the US Government?

What I am claiming, is that this is a whack-a-doodle thread. Give it up.

What you mean is you can no longer proclaim that the far right is chipping away at Miranda rights when Obama is the one that supported the challenge and supports the outcome. Thanks for playing.

Let me help you here. Miranda rights weren't touched by the decision at all, RGS. The outcome is beneficial to law enforcement and leaves Miranda rights intact, why would the DOJ not support it? I have one relatively minor disagreement with it which is made clear on the other thread so there's no point to be made here. Other than, well, thanks for playing.

 

[JenyEliza]

This surprises anyone, how, exactly?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What I am claiming, is that this is a whack-a-doodle thread. Give it up.

What you mean is you can no longer proclaim that the far right is chipping away at Miranda rights when Obama is the one that supported the challenge and supports the outcome. Thanks for playing.

Let me help you here. Miranda rights weren't touched by the decision at all, RGS. The outcome is beneficial to law enforcement and leaves Miranda rights intact, why would the DOJ not support it? I have one relatively minor disagreement with it which is made clear on the other thread so there's no point to be made here. Other than, well, thanks for playing.

And yet your leftoid buddies have a 26 page thread claiming they were and that the FAR RIGHT did it via the US Supreme Court. The whole point of this thread is to point out that IF any negative changes occurred as that thread claims for 26 pages that in fact it was not a far right Supreme Court that argued for those changes but rather Obama and his lap dogs.

Thanks for playing.

 

[goldcatt]

What you mean is you can no longer proclaim that the far right is chipping away at Miranda rights when Obama is the one that supported the challenge and supports the outcome. Thanks for playing.

Let me help you here. Miranda rights weren't touched by the decision at all, RGS. The outcome is beneficial to law enforcement and leaves Miranda rights intact, why would the DOJ not support it? I have one relatively minor disagreement with it which is made clear on the other thread so there's no point to be made here. Other than, well, thanks for playing.

And yet your leftoid buddies have a 26 page thread claiming they were and that the FAR RIGHT did it via the US Supreme Court. The whole point of this thread is to point out that IF any negative changes occurred as that thread claims for 26 pages that in fact it was not a far right Supreme Court that argued for those changes but rather Obama and his lap dogs.

Thanks for playing.

Fact: The Supreme Court overall leans farther right now than it has in at least the last 100 years. There are no strong moderates and a minority of liberals.

Fact: This decision does not do what you and a small minority of your fellow hystericals claim it does, not even close. Ignorance is not a partisan trait.

Fact: The DOJ amicus brief to the Supreme Court does not make the argument you claim. It does not argue for abolishing Miranda rights. You posted the link, read it.

Fact: Your premise is flawed and your understanding of the case and its documents is lacking. Go back and read it again, slowly this time.