and
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
and
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If someone is being held on excessively-high bail (or no bail), and are not afforded their right to a speedy trial, then aren't they being deprived of liberty without due process of law? Seems pretty clear based on a plain reading of the Constitution (for what that's worth anymore).
No one reads the constitution anymore! I’m willing to bet that the majority of the people posting on this thread who hate this ruling would be screaming bloody murder if their bond was too high and they sat in jail for 2 damn years.
There is no grey area when it comes to the constitution! Conservatives who look the other way because they think they are being tough on crime are just as guilty of crapping on the constitution as Liberals are.
Let the flame war begin!