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

[Cecilie1200]

I'll have to read the decisions before forming a real opinion but I have to say I find this surprising.

if you're not going to have a knee jerk response, i'm afraid i'll have to have you escorted from the thread.

sorry

Okay, I have to admit, that was funny.

Don't let it go to your head, though.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Liability...FBI agents, police officers, district attorneys, sheriffs and all law enforcement personnel work for WHOM???

Take your time pea brain...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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)

So we've gone from getting confession with an imaginary rubber hose all the way to devising a construct to never admit a confession into evidence

 

[Liability]

And this is only the beginning.



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.

Liability...FBI agents, police officers, district attorneys, sheriffs and all law enforcement personnel work for WHOM???

Take your time pea brain...

The last time (as recently as in this very thread) where you tried to laughingly lecture me, it was you who was not just wrong, but massively wrong, you brainless twerp.

And, now, things haven't changed.

The fact that law enforcement officials are employees of the government does not a thing to support your contention that anyone, but YOU, is the STATIST, you idiot statist.

It is amazing that you can be such a devoted statist and in such abject denial about your statism.

No rational definition of "statist" includes the absurd notion that one who favors permitting government officials and agents to have the power necessary to accomplish the tasks we give to them is a statist. Only a bombastic simpleton -- such as you -- would think in such an ignorant fashion.

As I noted earlier, you may misuse and misapply the term a great deal, but you actually have not the foggiest notion of what it means.

You remain a pathetic joke.

 

[George Costanza]

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)

So we've gone from getting confession with an imaginary rubber hose all the way to devising a construct to never admit a confession into evidence

No - we have gone from getting confessions with a very real rubber hose, to the Miranda decision, which gave some badly needed protection to criminal suspects, to the gradual erosion of that decision to where we are today (see the last paragraph of my post).

 

[Zander]

Just what we needed!! Another partisan shit tossing thread with a misleading title....... those damned Conservatives!!! ...

 

[FA_Q2]

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)

So we've gone from getting confession with an imaginary rubber hose all the way to devising a construct to never admit a confession into evidence

No - we have gone from getting confessions with a very real rubber hose, to the Miranda decision, which gave some badly needed protection to criminal suspects, to the gradual erosion of that decision to where we are today (see the last paragraph of my post).

I still do not see this as an erosion at all. What I see is a closing of a loophole, defining at what point your right to remain silent kicks in and when it does not. It seems that before a defense could claim that Johnny was silent for a few minutes and therefore all those incrimination statements are null and void. Now a defendant must exercise that right and I see no problem with that. But then again you said this:

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.

I will give that can be the case sometimes but I am resistant to applying that to conservative points against criminal processes. Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts. What we have a problem with the the continued use of loopholes to get off the GUILTY. The problem is that most of these loopholes do not protect the innocent but rather protect the guilty. Miranda is a need but the idea that a guilty person walks because a police officer misspeaks a single word is ludacris but that is what many progressives push. When an officer needs to read Miranda from a sheet of paper it has gone too far.

 

[George Costanza]

I will give that can be the case sometimes but I am resistant to applying that to conservative points against criminal processes. Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts. What we have a problem with the the continued use of loopholes to get off the GUILTY. The problem is that most of these loopholes do not protect the innocent but rather protect the guilty. Miranda is a need but the idea that a guilty person walks because a police officer misspeaks a single word is ludacris but that is what many progressives push. When an officer needs to read Miranda from a sheet of paper it has gone too far.

Think about what you have said here. You start with the assertion that "Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts." You then conclude with several statements to the efffect that "loopholes" exist which, in your view, do not protect the innocent but, rather, protect the "guilty."

There is only one kind of suspect prior to conviction - an INNOCENT one. Therefore, the Miranda decision ONLY protects the innocent or, more precisely, those PRESUMED to be innocent, which ALL pre-trial arrestees are.

One of the primary purposes of Miranda is to protect suspects from unfair and oppressive interrogation by police without first affording them the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. This should be a slam dunk for somone who "doesn't trust the government." I sure as hell don't trust the government - and that goes ten-fold when it comes to police officers. Police officers interrogating a suspect generally have their minds made up and are only looking for the suspect to make their case easier for them by confessing. They are hardly neutral, disinterested parties.

So what's it going to be? If you don't trust the government, then you cannot, by definition, trust police officers, because one of the most obvious and up-front arms of the government is the police. And if you don't trust the police, then you should be applauding the Miranda decision and stoutly resisting any attempt to dillute it.

 

[Bfgrn]

I will give that can be the case sometimes but I am resistant to applying that to conservative points against criminal processes. Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts. What we have a problem with the the continued use of loopholes to get off the GUILTY. The problem is that most of these loopholes do not protect the innocent but rather protect the guilty. Miranda is a need but the idea that a guilty person walks because a police officer misspeaks a single word is ludacris but that is what many progressives push. When an officer needs to read Miranda from a sheet of paper it has gone too far.

Think about what you have said here. You start with the assertion that "Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts." You then conclude with several statements to the efffect that "loopholes" exist which, in your view, do not protect the innocent but, rather, protect the "guilty."

There is only one kind of suspect prior to conviction - an INNOCENT one. Therefore, the Miranda decision ONLY protects the innocent or, more precisely, those PRESUMED to be innocent, which ALL pre-trial arrestees are.

One of the primary purposes of Miranda is to protect suspects from unfair and oppressive interrogation by police without first affording them the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. This should be a slam dunk for somone who "doesn't trust the government." I sure as hell don't trust the government - and that goes ten-fold when it comes to police officers. Police officers interrogating a suspect generally have their minds made up and are only looking for the suspect to make their case easier for them by confessing. They are hardly neutral, disinterested parties.

So what's it going to be? If you don't trust the government, then you cannot, by definition, trust police officers, because one of the most obvious and up-front arms of the government is the police. And if you don't trust the police, then you should be applauding the Miranda decision and stoutly resisting any attempt to dillute it.

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to George Costanza again*

Here is a true libertarian, which some on this board claim to be, yet there's not a peep from all but one libertarian...



The Bill of Rights Is for the Innocent

Because government schools don't teach much about Constitutional safeguards, many people think the Bill of Rights is just a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for criminals. And they wonder why we should protect the rights of killers and thieves.

But the Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect criminals. It was designed to protect you:

• To make sure a zealous prosecutor can't take you to court over and over again on the same charge — searching for a jury that will convict you.

• To make sure the police can't break into your home unannounced on the mere chance that you might have some drugs or illegal weapons stashed in your closet.

• To make sure politicians can't confiscate your home or other property to fulfill some dream of social reform.

• To make sure you don't have to answer questions put to you by the police — so a ruthless policeman can't twist your words out of context or browbeat you into confessing something you didn't do.

• To make sure your attorney can cross-examine any accuser or any witness against you.

Of course these safeguards protect the guilty as well as the innocent. But brushing them aside gives government employees the power to do as they wish — to harass whomever they claim is guilty.

Your Innocence Is No Protection by Harry Browne

 

[George Costanza]

I will give that can be the case sometimes but I am resistant to applying that to conservative points against criminal processes. Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts. What we have a problem with the the continued use of loopholes to get off the GUILTY. The problem is that most of these loopholes do not protect the innocent but rather protect the guilty. Miranda is a need but the idea that a guilty person walks because a police officer misspeaks a single word is ludacris but that is what many progressives push. When an officer needs to read Miranda from a sheet of paper it has gone too far.

Think about what you have said here. You start with the assertion that "Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts." You then conclude with several statements to the efffect that "loopholes" exist which, in your view, do not protect the innocent but, rather, protect the "guilty."

There is only one kind of suspect prior to conviction - an INNOCENT one. Therefore, the Miranda decision ONLY protects the innocent or, more precisely, those PRESUMED to be innocent, which ALL pre-trial arrestees are.

One of the primary purposes of Miranda is to protect suspects from unfair and oppressive interrogation by police without first affording them the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. This should be a slam dunk for somone who "doesn't trust the government." I sure as hell don't trust the government - and that goes ten-fold when it comes to police officers. Police officers interrogating a suspect generally have their minds made up and are only looking for the suspect to make their case easier for them by confessing. They are hardly neutral, disinterested parties.

So what's it going to be? If you don't trust the government, then you cannot, by definition, trust police officers, because one of the most obvious and up-front arms of the government is the police. And if you don't trust the police, then you should be applauding the Miranda decision and stoutly resisting any attempt to dillute it.

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to George Costanza again*

Here is a true libertarian, which some on this board claim to be, yet there's not a peep from all but one libertarian...



The Bill of Rights Is for the Innocent

Because government schools don't teach much about Constitutional safeguards, many people think the Bill of Rights is just a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for criminals. And they wonder why we should protect the rights of killers and thieves.

But the Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect criminals. It was designed to protect you:

• To make sure a zealous prosecutor can't take you to court over and over again on the same charge — searching for a jury that will convict you.

• To make sure the police can't break into your home unannounced on the mere chance that you might have some drugs or illegal weapons stashed in your closet.

• To make sure politicians can't confiscate your home or other property to fulfill some dream of social reform.

• To make sure you don't have to answer questions put to you by the police — so a ruthless policeman can't twist your words out of context or browbeat you into confessing something you didn't do.

• To make sure your attorney can cross-examine any accuser or any witness against you.

Of course these safeguards protect the guilty as well as the innocent. But brushing them aside gives government employees the power to do as they wish — to harass whomever they claim is guilty.

Your Innocence Is No Protection by Harry Browne

Thanks - I hope some of our conservative friends here will actually read this and digest it.

I suspect that FA_Q2 is doing what so many folks here do - something that you alluded to in an earlier post: indulging in selective definitions. This conservative mantra of "We don't trust the government; give the police free reign" has never ceased to amaze me. How do many of them reconcile this? They don't define the police as "government." Whey they talk about "government," they mean OBAMA and "that damn Senate" or "those worthless Congressmen." THOSE are the bad guys. Cops? We love 'em - they can do no wrong, because they protect US from THEM. Therefore, any time a cop makes an arrest, the suspect must be guilty. Heck, if he was innocent, he wouldn't have been arrested. Simple, no?

So the police are not part of that nasty old "government" that conservatives profess to hate so much.

Well, I assure you that the police are VERY MUCH "government." One of my favorite quotes is: "Tryanny never comes to your door unless it is wearing a badge." With this recent USSC decision, tyranny just gained another foothold.

 

[Bfgrn]

Don't believe there are thugs with badges and a culture in law enforcement to protect their own at the expense of We, the People?

Cop Accused Of DUI In Fatal Crash Walks

John Ardelean, a police officer who was seen drinking extensively just before killing two men in a car crash, walked free from the Criminal Courts building today. All charges against him had been dropped.

The prosecution was forced to drop charges after a ruling in late April by Judge Thomas Gainer, Jr. threw out blood-alcohol evidence against Ardelean, saying it was obtained illegally.

On Thanksgiving Day 2007, Ardelean was captured on video taking at least five shots at the Martini Ranch Bar before driving away. The subsequent wreck killed Erick Lagunas, 21 and 22-year-old Miguel Flores.

Seven hours after the accident, Ardelean's supervising officer, Lt. John Magruder, noticed Ardelean's eyes were bloodshot and his breath smelled of alcohol. He ordered a Breathalyzer test. Ardelean blew a .032, but prosecution experts were prepared to testify that at the time of the accident, his blood-alcohol must have been at least twice the legal limit of .08.

But other officers at the scene of the accident testified that they had seen no evidence that Ardelean was drunk.

And Judge Gainer, a notoriously pro-police judge who ruled in favor of three cops caught beating two men on surveillance tape, threw the Breathalyzer evidence out. He argued that Lt. Magruder's testimony wasn't credible, and that as a result, there was no probable cause to order the blood-alcohol test.

Without that evidence, the Cook County State's Attorney's office couldn't go on with its case.

Whole article...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does the Bill of Rights protect you from a government that is forcing you to buy a product and has control over your very life and death?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The part I always get angry about is when someone says "You have nothing to worry about, if you are innocent." What the **** makes anyone think cops care about innocent when they "know" you are guilty.

The last thing you should do if you are innocent is talk to the cops, because everything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law. You are confused and in shock after you walk in and find your spouse murdered, and the police ask you where you were when it happened. If you start telling them about your day, and forget to mention something that the police later find, which they will, you are guilty because you lied to the police. Why would you lie if you didn't have anything to hide?

Did you have an argument with your spouse lately? Guilty.

Do you have life insurance? Guilty.

Do you feel guilty because you were not there when your spouse died? Guilty

Think that it is your fault because if you had been there it would not have happened? Guilty.

You cannot win in these situations because your emotions will always trip you up. And if they do not, the fact that you are not emotional will count against you. Why do you think police unions are fighting for the right to delay questioning of any officer involved in a shooting incident for 48 hours? They even want to give them this right if they are charged with a criminal act.

They never talk without a union rep, and often have a lawyer there at the same time. Think about it.

Could it be that they know how easy it is to say the wrong thing, even if you are innocent? Shouldn't you get the same consideration from them as they want for themselves?

 

[Bfgrn]

Think about what you have said here. You start with the assertion that "Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts." You then conclude with several statements to the efffect that "loopholes" exist which, in your view, do not protect the innocent but, rather, protect the "guilty."

There is only one kind of suspect prior to conviction - an INNOCENT one. Therefore, the Miranda decision ONLY protects the innocent or, more precisely, those PRESUMED to be innocent, which ALL pre-trial arrestees are.

One of the primary purposes of Miranda is to protect suspects from unfair and oppressive interrogation by police without first affording them the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. This should be a slam dunk for somone who "doesn't trust the government." I sure as hell don't trust the government - and that goes ten-fold when it comes to police officers. Police officers interrogating a suspect generally have their minds made up and are only looking for the suspect to make their case easier for them by confessing. They are hardly neutral, disinterested parties.

So what's it going to be? If you don't trust the government, then you cannot, by definition, trust police officers, because one of the most obvious and up-front arms of the government is the police. And if you don't trust the police, then you should be applauding the Miranda decision and stoutly resisting any attempt to dillute it.

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to George Costanza again*

Here is a true libertarian, which some on this board claim to be, yet there's not a peep from all but one libertarian...



The Bill of Rights Is for the Innocent

Because government schools don't teach much about Constitutional safeguards, many people think the Bill of Rights is just a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for criminals. And they wonder why we should protect the rights of killers and thieves.

But the Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect criminals. It was designed to protect you:

• To make sure a zealous prosecutor can't take you to court over and over again on the same charge — searching for a jury that will convict you.

• To make sure the police can't break into your home unannounced on the mere chance that you might have some drugs or illegal weapons stashed in your closet.

• To make sure politicians can't confiscate your home or other property to fulfill some dream of social reform.

• To make sure you don't have to answer questions put to you by the police — so a ruthless policeman can't twist your words out of context or browbeat you into confessing something you didn't do.

• To make sure your attorney can cross-examine any accuser or any witness against you.

Of course these safeguards protect the guilty as well as the innocent. But brushing them aside gives government employees the power to do as they wish — to harass whomever they claim is guilty.

Your Innocence Is No Protection by Harry Browne

Thanks - I hope some of our conservative friends here will actually read this and digest it.

I suspect that FA_Q2 is doing what so many folks here do - something that you alluded to in an earlier post: indulging in selective definitions. This conservative mantra of "We don't trust the government; give the police free reign" has never ceased to amaze me. How do many of them reconcile this? They don't define the police as "government." Whey they talk about "government," they mean OBAMA and "that damn Senate" or "those worthless Congressmen." THOSE are the bad guys. Cops? We love 'em - they can do no wrong, because they protect US from THEM. Therefore, any time a cop makes an arrest, the suspect must be guilty. Heck, if he was innocent, he wouldn't have been arrested. Simple, no?

So the police are not part of that nasty old "government" that conservatives profess to hate so much.

Well, I assure you that the police are VERY MUCH "government." One of my favorite quotes is: "Tryanny never comes to your door unless it is wearing a badge." With this recent USSC decision, tyranny just gained another foothold.

It's the blindest form of statism. But what's really concerning about the right's apathy; it's truly the MOST totalitarian and tyrannical VERY MUCH "government". Police don't come to the house to hand citizens a tax bill.

They don't even listen to the men that once defined 'conservatism'

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

 

[Liability]

The libs here are like almost any 60 Minutes piece on a criminal prosecution: the libs over at See B.S. never met a prosecution they didn't find "tainted" or "suspect" of a "miscarriage of justice."

The fact is: the arguments offered by the libs in this thread are facially absurd.

It is perfectly American to have a basic mistrust of government. Conservatives already appreciate this. It's why we like a divided government and Federalism and checks and balances and neutral laws etc etc etc.

And yet, despite that, the Framers did not set about the task of (and no conservative worthy of his salt seeks) the creation of a government that was incapable of DOING the very things we agree governments are supposed to do.

Do we need police? You bet. Does that mean we should give police free rein? Absolutely not. Do we have to agree, therefore, that the Miranda decision is a reasonable and Constitutionally palatable method of placing a check on the police? Absolutely NOT.

No person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. If you want to translate that into "criminal suspects have a right to remain silent," then I'm more than happy to agree. But if you want to tell us that this means that the police should be obliged to play school teacher to these guys upon arresting them, then I have to part company with your interpretation of the requirements of what the Constitution says.

What does the Miranda decision require? That officers are obliged to provide a constant teaching experience to some folks who were often not very apt pupils in the first place. And that's really quite absurd. Arrest them. ASK them anything you damn well wish to ask them provided that you do so properly and make no threats or cause no pain or fear of pain. And if they speak, we should get to USE it against them. Life comes with penalties for being a dumbass.

On the other hand, if they invoke their right to remain silent, then there should be no questioning. But yes, they SHOULD have to -- themselves -- take the very simple action of SAYING that they are going to exercise their to remain silent. As the SCOTUS just correctly determined, it OUGHT to be considered RIDICULOUS that they can claim the benefit merely by having been quiet for a period of time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to George Costanza again*

Here is a true libertarian, which some on this board claim to be, yet there's not a peep from all but one libertarian...



The Bill of Rights Is for the Innocent

Because government schools don't teach much about Constitutional safeguards, many people think the Bill of Rights is just a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for criminals. And they wonder why we should protect the rights of killers and thieves.

But the Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect criminals. It was designed to protect you:

• To make sure a zealous prosecutor can't take you to court over and over again on the same charge — searching for a jury that will convict you.

• To make sure the police can't break into your home unannounced on the mere chance that you might have some drugs or illegal weapons stashed in your closet.

• To make sure politicians can't confiscate your home or other property to fulfill some dream of social reform.

• To make sure you don't have to answer questions put to you by the police — so a ruthless policeman can't twist your words out of context or browbeat you into confessing something you didn't do.

• To make sure your attorney can cross-examine any accuser or any witness against you.

Of course these safeguards protect the guilty as well as the innocent. But brushing them aside gives government employees the power to do as they wish — to harass whomever they claim is guilty.

Your Innocence Is No Protection by Harry Browne

Thanks - I hope some of our conservative friends here will actually read this and digest it.

I suspect that FA_Q2 is doing what so many folks here do - something that you alluded to in an earlier post: indulging in selective definitions. This conservative mantra of "We don't trust the government; give the police free reign" has never ceased to amaze me. How do many of them reconcile this? They don't define the police as "government." Whey they talk about "government," they mean OBAMA and "that damn Senate" or "those worthless Congressmen." THOSE are the bad guys. Cops? We love 'em - they can do no wrong, because they protect US from THEM. Therefore, any time a cop makes an arrest, the suspect must be guilty. Heck, if he was innocent, he wouldn't have been arrested. Simple, no?

So the police are not part of that nasty old "government" that conservatives profess to hate so much.

Well, I assure you that the police are VERY MUCH "government." One of my favorite quotes is: "Tryanny never comes to your door unless it is wearing a badge." With this recent USSC decision, tyranny just gained another foothold.

It's the blindest form of statism. But what's really concerning about the right's apathy; it's truly the MOST totalitarian and tyrannical VERY MUCH "government". Police don't come to the house to hand citizens a tax bill.

They don't even listen to the men that once defined 'conservatism'

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

But 16,000 new IRS agent will make sure you're ObamaCare premiums are fully paid, amiright?

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks - I hope some of our conservative friends here will actually read this and digest it.

I suspect that FA_Q2 is doing what so many folks here do - something that you alluded to in an earlier post: indulging in selective definitions. This conservative mantra of "We don't trust the government; give the police free reign" has never ceased to amaze me. How do many of them reconcile this? They don't define the police as "government." Whey they talk about "government," they mean OBAMA and "that damn Senate" or "those worthless Congressmen." THOSE are the bad guys. Cops? We love 'em - they can do no wrong, because they protect US from THEM. Therefore, any time a cop makes an arrest, the suspect must be guilty. Heck, if he was innocent, he wouldn't have been arrested. Simple, no?

So the police are not part of that nasty old "government" that conservatives profess to hate so much.

Well, I assure you that the police are VERY MUCH "government." One of my favorite quotes is: "Tryanny never comes to your door unless it is wearing a badge." With this recent USSC decision, tyranny just gained another foothold.

It's the blindest form of statism. But what's really concerning about the right's apathy; it's truly the MOST totalitarian and tyrannical VERY MUCH "government". Police don't come to the house to hand citizens a tax bill.

They don't even listen to the men that once defined 'conservatism'

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

But 16,000 new IRS agent will make sure you're ObamaCare premiums are fully paid, amiright?

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

IRS Expansion | FactCheck.org

Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?

A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's the blindest form of statism. But what's really concerning about the right's apathy; it's truly the MOST totalitarian and tyrannical VERY MUCH "government". Police don't come to the house to hand citizens a tax bill.

They don't even listen to the men that once defined 'conservatism'

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

But 16,000 new IRS agent will make sure you're ObamaCare premiums are fully paid, amiright?

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

IRS Expansion | FactCheck.org

Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?

A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.

Ohhh it's just a coincidence that it was in the ObamaCare Bill. Gotcha.

Just a coinky dink

 

[The T]

The libs here are like almost any 60 Minutes piece on a criminal prosecution: the libs over at See B.S. never met a prosecution they didn't find "tainted" or "suspect" of a "miscarriage of justice."

The fact is: the arguments offered by the libs in this thread are facially absurd.

It is perfectly American to have a basic mistrust of government. Conservatives already appreciate this. It's why we like a divided government and Federalism and checks and balances and neutral laws etc etc etc.

And yet, despite that, the Framers did not set about the task of (and no conservative worthy of his salt seeks) the creation of a government that was incapable of DOING the very things we agree governments are supposed to do.

Do we need police? You bet. Does that mean we should give police free rein? Absolutely not. Do we have to agree, therefore, that the Miranda decision is a reasonable and Constitutionally palatable method of placing a check on the police? Absolutely NOT.

No person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. If you want to translate that into "criminal suspects have a right to remain silent," then I'm more than happy to agree. But if you want to tell us that this means that the police should be obliged to play school teacher to these guys upon arresting them, then I have to part company with your interpretation of the requirements of what the Constitution says.

What does the Miranda decision require? That officers are obliged to provide a constant teaching experience to some folks who were often not very apt pupils in the first place. And that's really quite absurd. Arrest them. ASK them anything you damn well wish to ask them provided that you do so properly and make no threats or cause no pain or fear of pain. And if they speak, we should get to USE it against them. Life comes with penalties for being a dumbass.

On the other hand, if they invoke their right to remain silent, then there should be no questioning. But yes, they SHOULD have to -- themselves -- take the very simple action of SAYING that they are going to exercise their to remain silent. As the SCOTUS just correctly determined, it OUGHT to be considered RIDICULOUS that they can claim the benefit merely by having been quiet for a period of time.

Indeed, And some know that Government is a necessary evil in the scheme of Human events to have and ordily Society...but that Government can get out of hand and limit Liberty they were to defend as one of their FIRST objectives. (Safety [defence] of the Republic and States as a whole being the first objective).

The Constitution was designed to ensure this. Certain Founders gave warnings as to keep the Government in check for the sake of Liberty of the People. The distrust had to be healthy, but not overwhelming. A balance of sorts. They gave warnings to future generations.

Notably? Thomas Jefferson spoke of it when he was quoted as saying: "Our very liberty depends so heavily on distrust of government that the government itself, we are constantly told, was constructed to instill that distrust."

___________________


Nice Post.

 

[Bfgrn]

But 16,000 new IRS agent will make sure you're ObamaCare premiums are fully paid, amiright?

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

IRS Expansion | FactCheck.org

Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?

A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.

Ohhh it's just a coincidence that it was in the ObamaCare Bill. Gotcha.

Just a coinky dink

Hey Frank, you can easily stop making ans ass out of yourself by reading the
FULL ANSWER

This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.

The IRS’ main job under the new law isn’t to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies — in the form of refundable tax credits — to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.