Mr Obama wants defendants legal rights limited.

[alan1]

The Associated Press: Obama legal team wants defendants' rights limited
Snip,

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Next stop on this train, Miranda Rights.

 

[dilloduck]

The Associated Press: Obama legal team wants defendants' rights limited
Snip,

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Next stop on this train, Miranda Rights.

We can only hope

 

[alan1]

We can only hope

For change.

 

[jillian]

wasn't this a case started against bush where obama is now the substituted named defendant?

either way... overturning the rule that if someone has an attorney or has asked for one would be bad law.

and if its something that alito wants, it can't be good.

 

[Immanuel]

It sounds like Bush.

The basic Bush philosophy was that defendants don't need rights because if they are accused they are guilty of being terrorists. And that is coming from a two time Bush voter... damn Democrats could not offer a decent alternative, not even once.

And for you that are out there who continue to support Bush, well, let me remind you that you have no right to bitch if President Obama continues to steal your civil rights. You threw the door open for Bush. It is a bit late to slam the door now.

Immie

 

[driveby]

If Barry was still practicing law instead of being the nation's top law enforcement official, do you think that he would be supporting such a change?

Rhetorical question: The answer is an emphatic NO..............

Funny how when Lefty goes from railing against The Man to becoming The Man how his view on things changes..............

 

[biglin]

'Twas ever thus in the world of the glox and the rey baro.

 

[Mad Scientist]

wasn't this a case started against bush where obama is now the substituted named defendant?
either way... overturning the rule that if someone has an attorney or has asked for one would be bad law.
and if its something that alito wants, it can't be good.

Did you read the article?:

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Neither Bush 41 nor 43 was Prez at the time.
More from the article:

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

Example:
Defendant asks for a Lawyer, Police stop questioning, then Defendant says, for whatever reason, "Yeah, I'll make a statement". What's wrong with that?
That's really no different than when defendants make a statement immediately after they're read their rights.

 

[Annie]

It sounds like Bush.

The basic Bush philosophy was that defendants don't need rights because if they are accused they are guilty of being terrorists. And that is coming from a two time Bush voter... damn Democrats could not offer a decent alternative, not even once.

And for you that are out there who continue to support Bush, well, let me remind you that you have no right to bitch if President Obama continues to steal your civil rights. You threw the door open for Bush. It is a bit late to slam the door now.

Immie

and if Jillian is correct, then how much worse is the charge of Bush III for Obama?

 

[alan1]

It sounds like Bush.

The basic Bush philosophy was that defendants don't need rights because if they are accused they are guilty of being terrorists. And that is coming from a two time Bush voter... damn Democrats could not offer a decent alternative, not even once.

And for you that are out there who continue to support Bush, well, let me remind you that you have no right to bitch if President Obama continues to steal your civil rights. You threw the door open for Bush. It is a bit late to slam the door now.

Immie

Leave Mr Bush out of it.
The article I posted is about the current administrations actions.

Mr Bush being a prick is no excuse for Mr Obama to be a prick and you know that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It sounds like Bush.

The basic Bush philosophy was that defendants don't need rights because if they are accused they are guilty of being terrorists. And that is coming from a two time Bush voter... damn Democrats could not offer a decent alternative, not even once.

And for you that are out there who continue to support Bush, well, let me remind you that you have no right to bitch if President Obama continues to steal your civil rights. You threw the door open for Bush. It is a bit late to slam the door now.

Immie

Leave Mr Bush out of it.
The article I posted is about the current administrations actions.

Mr Bush being a prick is no excuse for Mr Obama to be a prick and you know that.

I remember quite well how every time a Conservative brought up Clinton the left HOWLED like mad that HE was not President and it did not apply. Of course NOW, they are just fine with claiming EVERYTHING is Bush's fault. Even when it obviously is not.

By the way, Jillian is a troll. She is an Obama bot that will say ANYTHING to defend him.

 

[jillian]

If Barry was still practicing law instead of being the nation's top law enforcement official, do you think that he would be supporting such a change?

Rhetorical question: The answer is an emphatic NO..............

Funny how when Lefty goes from railing against The Man to becoming The Man how his view on things changes..............

That happens when you go from being a kid to having a kid, too.

But if it actually IS what it sounds like, its a bad idea.

 

[jillian]

It sounds like Bush.

The basic Bush philosophy was that defendants don't need rights because if they are accused they are guilty of being terrorists. And that is coming from a two time Bush voter... damn Democrats could not offer a decent alternative, not even once.

And for you that are out there who continue to support Bush, well, let me remind you that you have no right to bitch if President Obama continues to steal your civil rights. You threw the door open for Bush. It is a bit late to slam the door now.

Immie

Leave Mr Bush out of it.
The article I posted is about the current administrations actions.

Mr Bush being a prick is no excuse for Mr Obama to be a prick and you know that.

I remember quite well how every time a Conservative brought up Clinton the left HOWLED like mad that HE was not President and it did not apply. Of course NOW, they are just fine with claiming EVERYTHING is Bush's fault. Even when it obviously is not.

By the way, Jillian is a troll. She is an Obama bot that will say ANYTHING to defend him.

you know, luckily, most people except for the nuttiest of wingnutters know that's BS...

feeling a little truth impaired tonight, psycho troll?

 

[Dis]

Leave Mr Bush out of it.
The article I posted is about the current administrations actions.

Mr Bush being a prick is no excuse for Mr Obama to be a prick and you know that.

I remember quite well how every time a Conservative brought up Clinton the left HOWLED like mad that HE was not President and it did not apply. Of course NOW, they are just fine with claiming EVERYTHING is Bush's fault. Even when it obviously is not.

By the way, Jillian is a troll. She is an Obama bot that will say ANYTHING to defend him.

you know, luckily, most people except for the nuttiest of wingnutters know that's BS...

feeling a little truth impaired tonight, psycho troll?

Well... You definitely aren't a troll, but you really can't take anyone criticising Obama... They're all intolerant, and full of hate, and if I remember right, some even wanted him dead.. And I certainly ain't all that nutty.

 

[jillian]

I remember quite well how every time a Conservative brought up Clinton the left HOWLED like mad that HE was not President and it did not apply. Of course NOW, they are just fine with claiming EVERYTHING is Bush's fault. Even when it obviously is not.

By the way, Jillian is a troll. She is an Obama bot that will say ANYTHING to defend him.

you know, luckily, most people except for the nuttiest of wingnutters know that's BS...

feeling a little truth impaired tonight, psycho troll?

Well... You definitely aren't a troll, but you really can't take anyone criticising Obama... They're all intolerant, and full of hate, and if I remember right, some even wanted him dead.. And I certainly ain't all that nutty.

my issue is with the people who started before he even started donig anything...and the people with the fake outrage.

you can't even get to what would you do differently? what do you agree/disagree with? when all there is flying around is the manufactured rage.

and there is no question that the whole "he's a terrorist... not an american"... thing if not designed to get him off'd, certainly didn't take into account the dngers of that type of inflammatory BS.

And no... I haven't found you particularly nutty.

I am sure we all have our moments, though.

 

[xsited1]

The Associated Press: Obama legal team wants defendants' rights limited
Snip,

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Next stop on this train, Miranda Rights.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Obama KNOWS what is best for everyone. IN OBAMA WE TRUST!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you know, luckily, most people except for the nuttiest of wingnutters know that's BS...

feeling a little truth impaired tonight, psycho troll?

Well... You definitely aren't a troll, but you really can't take anyone criticising Obama... They're all intolerant, and full of hate, and if I remember right, some even wanted him dead.. And I certainly ain't all that nutty.

my issue is with the people who started before he even started donig anything...and the people with the fake outrage.

you can't even get to what would you do differently? what do you agree/disagree with? when all there is flying around is the manufactured rage.

and there is no question that the whole "he's a terrorist... not an american"... thing if not designed to get him off'd, certainly didn't take into account the dngers of that type of inflammatory BS.

And no... I haven't found you particularly nutty.

I am sure we all have our moments, though.

Yet you had no problem with the left attacking Bush before he was even President, claiming he stole an election, NOW DID YOU? And I have already TOLD you what I would do differently and so have most of those against Obama, you just don't want to hear it.

As I recall you are just APPALLED that Bush spent a trillion dollars we did not have, BUT are just fine with OBAMA spending TRILLIONS every year we do not have. As I recall your ignorant defense is " well ya but he is spending the money here" So if Bush spent his trillion here you would be JUST fine with it? Of Course he DID spend it HERE cause it was paid mostly to AMERICAN firms. American troops and Military distributors INSIDE the US.

And calling anyone a wing nut is rich when it comes from you, you are so far left I am not sure there is a scale left to cover you. A Lawyer that gladly ignores the law when ever it is dealing with your party and the liberals. You stated, as I recall, that there should be an illegal, unconstitutional Intelligence test to determine who could vote. Not to mention all the other comments you have made about how YOU would remove or limit rights to anyone that did not believe as you do.