What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Will The Supreme Court Finally Strike Down Miranda Rights?? Let's Hope So!!

Biff_Poindexter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
21,369
Reaction score
10,873
Points
1,265
Location
USA

"While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for abortion rights, a lesser-known case looks likely to erode another constitutional precedent—Miranda rights. This case, Vega v. Tekoh, asks whether a person’s federal constitutional rights are violated if a police officer fails to inform them of their rights to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, and to be protected against self-incrimination whenever the person is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. The Supreme Court now seems poised to reverse its decision in Miranda, which, much like Dobbs, would give states—and, to a significant extent, individual towns—the power to decide an important question of policy: whether police should be legally required to give these warnings. Whether one agrees with the overturning of Miranda’s constitutional protections, the ruling shines a light on the power of each state to reimagine and redefine policing. Yet too many states and towns are ill prepared to take on the responsibility of regulating policing, having long preferred to defer the task to the Supreme Court."



About time this bad legal ruling is up for being overturned.....There should be no such thing as miranda rights -- police should be able to decide for themselves if they want to afford criminals certain rights...not the federal government....I trust the cops to do what is right more than I trust the government who often sides with criminals....how many times have people been able to get away with crimes just because some cop didnt' read them they stupid Miranda rights. And let us not forget, the guy this right was named after was a filthy wetback rapist...The guy even confessed and was convicted...but the pro-rape Supreme Court overturned it because of this whole long history of police denying 5th amendment rights to marginalized people and coercing them into confessions, blah blah blah...if criminals are too dumb to assert the 5th amendment rights, oh well, it isn't the cops job to do it...

Warren wrote: "Expecting these men to challenge armed authority figures would treat hundreds of years of racial discrimination and police abuse as if they did not exist. Against this backdrop, without adequate protections, “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice”

This was absolutely false then and it's even more false now.....Cops didn't go around abusing people back in the past based on race and they definitely don't go around trying to force confessions out of innocent people or doing anything to try to intimidate innocent people or "trick" or "trap" them.....if anyone is the victim of that type of abuse, it isn't the poor or marginalized people -- it's the privileged that are more abused by law enforcement....how soon we forget how the FBI tricked the sitting National Security Advisor into pleading to a felony...twice....so yes, when it comes to FEDS, there definitely needs to be more limits put on them...but local cops, they have too many restrictions on them already....more freedom for them to do their jobs equals more freedom for the citizens as well...
 

Delldude

Sheep Dipped Boy Scout
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
6,202
Reaction score
3,965
Points
928
Location
Plasticville U.S.A
This is one issue where the fed should have precedence, being this is a constitutional right.
 

Toffeenut Baconsmuggler

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2021
Messages
9,431
Reaction score
11,749
Points
2,138
WHO is Miranda, and WHY does SHE get all the rights???
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
61,955
Reaction score
27,785
Points
2,290
I disagree. It should be read before questioning. As not everyone may KNOW THIS..........You have the Right to Remain Silent to an Attorney.........explaining their rights during the arrest is information.

Gives a moment of pause to those being arrested to go maybe I should just shut my trap and say nothing.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,237
Reaction score
68,751
Points
2,190
I would not be surprised if the TRUMPCourt were to repeal Miranda protections
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,751
Reaction score
27,036
Points
2,915
police should be able to decide for themselves if they want to afford criminals certain rights

Only a court can determine if a person is a criminal or not.

Police can only accuse and charge, innocence is presumed.

The right not to speak to police or prosecutors and the right to be represented by counsel has been enshrined in The Constitution since it was first adopted.

"The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself".

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions".


The Miranda ruling actually grants no additional rights to the accused, it merely states that the accused must be informed of his or her rights at the time of the arrest. If they are not informed of their rights, any evidence they provide may be deemed inadmissible because their rights (rights granted previous to Miranda) were not explained to them.
 

Vastator

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
17,671
Reaction score
4,702
Points
290

"While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for abortion rights, a lesser-known case looks likely to erode another constitutional precedent—Miranda rights. This case, Vega v. Tekoh, asks whether a person’s federal constitutional rights are violated if a police officer fails to inform them of their rights to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, and to be protected against self-incrimination whenever the person is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. The Supreme Court now seems poised to reverse its decision in Miranda, which, much like Dobbs, would give states—and, to a significant extent, individual towns—the power to decide an important question of policy: whether police should be legally required to give these warnings. Whether one agrees with the overturning of Miranda’s constitutional protections, the ruling shines a light on the power of each state to reimagine and redefine policing. Yet too many states and towns are ill prepared to take on the responsibility of regulating policing, having long preferred to defer the task to the Supreme Court."


About time this bad legal ruling is up for being overturned.....There should be no such thing as miranda rights -- police should be able to decide for themselves if they want to afford criminals certain rights...not the federal government....I trust the cops to do what is right more than I trust the government who often sides with criminals....how many times have people been able to get away with crimes just because some cop didnt' read them they stupid Miranda rights. And let us not forget, the guy this right was named after was a filthy wetback rapist...The guy even confessed and was convicted...but the pro-rape Supreme Court overturned it because of this whole long history of police denying 5th amendment rights to marginalized people and coercing them into confessions, blah blah blah...if criminals are too dumb to assert the 5th amendment rights, oh well, it isn't the cops job to do it...

Warren wrote: "Expecting these men to challenge armed authority figures would treat hundreds of years of racial discrimination and police abuse as if they did not exist. Against this backdrop, without adequate protections, “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice”

This was absolutely false then and it's even more false now.....Cops didn't go around abusing people back in the past based on race and they definitely don't go around trying to force confessions out of innocent people or doing anything to try to intimidate innocent people or "trick" or "trap" them.....if anyone is the victim of that type of abuse, it isn't the poor or marginalized people -- it's the privileged that are more abused by law enforcement....how soon we forget how the FBI tricked the sitting National Security Advisor into pleading to a felony...twice....so yes, when it comes to FEDS, there definitely needs to be more limits put on them...but local cops, they have too many restrictions on them already....more freedom for them to do their jobs equals more freedom for the citizens as well...
Lol! You trust the cops more than the government? Do you realize how absurd that statement is?
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
21,369
Reaction score
10,873
Points
1,265
Location
USA
Only a court can determine if a person is a criminal or not.

Police can only accuse and charge, innocence is presumed.

The right not to speak to police or prosecutors and the right to be represented by counsel has been enshrined in The Constitution since it was first adopted.

"The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself".

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions".


The Miranda ruling actually grants no additional rights to the accused, it merely states that the accused must be informed of his or her rights at the time of the arrest. If they are not informed of their rights, any evidence they provide may be deemed inadmissible because their rights (rights granted previous to Miranda) were not explained to them.
Not the cops job to remind thugs of their rights...I commend the Conservative effort to finally repeal this ruling -- because that is what freedom is all about
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,237
Reaction score
68,751
Points
2,190
I disagree. It should be read before questioning. As not everyone may KNOW THIS..........You have the Right to Remain Silent to an Attorney.........explaining their rights during the arrest is information.

Gives a moment of pause to those being arrested to go maybe I should just shut my trap and say nothing.

I never understood why ANYONE would consent to questioning from the police either with an attorney or not.

The Police are not there to help you, they are there to get you to confess and gather evidence against you

Burden of proof is on the prosecution, why should you help provide proof?
 
Last edited:
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
21,369
Reaction score
10,873
Points
1,265
Location
USA
Lol! You trust the cops more than the government? Do you realize how absurd that statement is?
Trust government?? Oh look...we have a groomer Democrat government worshiper....

So you trust Pelosi and Schumer more than trust someone like this guy??

160718213040-26-rnc-gallery-0718-exlarge-169.jpg
 

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
38,148
Reaction score
27,735
Points
2,905

"While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for abortion rights, a lesser-known case looks likely to erode another constitutional precedent—Miranda rights. This case, Vega v. Tekoh, asks whether a person’s federal constitutional rights are violated if a police officer fails to inform them of their rights to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, and to be protected against self-incrimination whenever the person is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. The Supreme Court now seems poised to reverse its decision in Miranda, which, much like Dobbs, would give states—and, to a significant extent, individual towns—the power to decide an important question of policy: whether police should be legally required to give these warnings. Whether one agrees with the overturning of Miranda’s constitutional protections, the ruling shines a light on the power of each state to reimagine and redefine policing. Yet too many states and towns are ill prepared to take on the responsibility of regulating policing, having long preferred to defer the task to the Supreme Court."


About time this bad legal ruling is up for being overturned.....There should be no such thing as miranda rights -- police should be able to decide for themselves if they want to afford criminals certain rights...not the federal government....I trust the cops to do what is right more than I trust the government who often sides with criminals....how many times have people been able to get away with crimes just because some cop didnt' read them they stupid Miranda rights. And let us not forget, the guy this right was named after was a filthy wetback rapist...The guy even confessed and was convicted...but the pro-rape Supreme Court overturned it because of this whole long history of police denying 5th amendment rights to marginalized people and coercing them into confessions, blah blah blah...if criminals are too dumb to assert the 5th amendment rights, oh well, it isn't the cops job to do it...

Warren wrote: "Expecting these men to challenge armed authority figures would treat hundreds of years of racial discrimination and police abuse as if they did not exist. Against this backdrop, without adequate protections, “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice”

This was absolutely false then and it's even more false now.....Cops didn't go around abusing people back in the past based on race and they definitely don't go around trying to force confessions out of innocent people or doing anything to try to intimidate innocent people or "trick" or "trap" them.....if anyone is the victim of that type of abuse, it isn't the poor or marginalized people -- it's the privileged that are more abused by law enforcement....how soon we forget how the FBI tricked the sitting National Security Advisor into pleading to a felony...twice....so yes, when it comes to FEDS, there definitely needs to be more limits put on them...but local cops, they have too many restrictions on them already....more freedom for them to do their jobs equals more freedom for the citizens as well...
Well the Left has taken away our Constitutional right to assemble during Covid, and they are currently trying to take away our right to a trial with due process as we see them do with Trump being smeared every day on TV, and there is also the gun thingy they are trying to take away as we see the media talk about everyday, in between the trials for Trump

So at this point, what the hell, why not.
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
61,955
Reaction score
27,785
Points
2,290
I never understood why ANYONE would consent to questioning from the police either with an attorney or not.

The Police are not there to help you, they are there to get you to confess

Burden of proof is on the prosecution, why should you help provide proof?
I'm not anti Police.........but you are correct. They want information on whatever crime they are arresting for an a easy conviction. Why the Miranda is there. To read the rights so people might think before blathering on...........

It should be read every time.........It's just SOP.
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,751
Reaction score
27,036
Points
2,915
In fact, Miranda is no impediment to police and prosecutions. Dutifully and formally informing a suspect of their rights prior to questioning GUARANTEES that they accused cannot come back later and claim to have been coerced.

Instead of limiting police ... it actually protects them and leads to more convictions at court.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
21,369
Reaction score
10,873
Points
1,265
Location
USA

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,751
Reaction score
27,036
Points
2,915
To read the rights so people might think before blathering on...........

To be fair, they blather on anyway.

One thing that nearly all criminals with whom police deal have in common is that they are all weapons-grade morons.

We have spent decades and millions of dollars trying to determine the socioeconomic roots of criminal behavior when any cop will tell you, it's idiots who commit crimes.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
21,369
Reaction score
10,873
Points
1,265
Location
USA
Well the Left has taken away our Constitutional right to assemble during Covid, and they are currently trying to take away our right to a trial with due process as we see them do with Trump being smeared every day on TV, and there is also the gun thingy they are trying to take away as we see the media talk about everyday, in between the trials for Trump

So at this point, what the hell, why not.
The left wasn't in charge during this time where you felt your "right to assemble" was taken from you....

This happened during a Republican controlled admin, acting on public health recommendations from a republican controlled department of that admin

Why is the right so weak?
 

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
38,148
Reaction score
27,735
Points
2,905
The left wasn't in charge during this time where you felt your "right to assemble" was taken from you....

This happened during a Republican controlled admin, acting on public health recommendations from a republican controlled department of that admin

Why is the right so weak?
Correct, but it was much worse in Left wing states

Trump gave each state the freedom to deal with this as they please as provided in the Constitution

The shining model of success being Florida who allowed the most freedom and ended up with the best economy.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
21,369
Reaction score
10,873
Points
1,265
Location
USA
To be fair, they blather on anyway.

One thing that nearly all criminals with whom police deal have in common is that they are all weapons-grade morons.

We have spent decades and millions of dollars trying to determine the socioeconomic roots of criminal behavior when any cop will tell you, it's idiots who commit crimes.
Some of those idiots who commit crimes go on to make cool movies tho...
Prison-Dinesh-1lvurz9-1024x561.png
 

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
38,148
Reaction score
27,735
Points
2,905

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top