BREAKING NEWS! Obama orders Holder to support eliminating Miranda rights

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Moron this was a set up. Designed to make the other thread look stupid. I read the ruling. All it did was say that this guy had no special protection because he was read his rights and chose to talk anyway.

However we have a 26 page thread from the left claiming that the decision was because of the far right and making the claim Miranda rights were removed.

IF that were true, the fact is Obama supported it. THAT is the point. The supposed far right Supreme Court made a ruling SUPPORTING the desires of Obama and his Justice Department.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I know I have the right to remain silent but sometimes I don't have the ability.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Moron this was a set up. Designed to make the other thread look stupid. I read the ruling. All it did was say that this guy had no special protection because he was read his rights and chose to talk anyway.

However we have a 26 page thread from the left claiming that the decision was because of the far right and making the claim Miranda rights were removed.

IF that were true, the fact is Obama supported it. THAT is the point. The supposed far right Supreme Court made a ruling SUPPORTING the desires of Obama and his Justice Department.

Actually, dear, it said more than that. It changed no rights, but it changed the way the right to silence is invoked. You do know what invocation is, right?

I realize you were trying to mock the other thread, but in doing so you made a patently false claim in an lame attempt to prove a partisan hack point. Which makes you exactly the same as the people you're mocking, who are doing what agin? Oh yes, making a patently false claim in a lame attempt to prove a partisan hack point.

You fail, they fail, deal with it.