Posted on 04/25/2009 11:11:30 AM PDT by paustin110
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson decision in which the Supreme Court said that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. I can't believe the left isn't coming unglued on this one, or the ACLU for that matter. I'm betting that they will.
The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has weighed in: Stephen Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Centre for Human Rights in Atlanta, described the administration's position as "disappointing - no question".
(Excerpt) Read more at soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot.com ...
he called them “negative rights”. I guess he wants to undo all of them.
People should learn that the police are not our friends.
Speculation...this is a real impediment if masses of people were rounded up...might run out of lawyers very rapidly!...ha!
This really sets off my alarm bells....
It would be nice if individuals had the backbone to tell police interrogators where to go if the accused wanted a lawyer and the police tried questioning without the lawyer present. Unfortunately, this right becomes less meaningful if stupid suspects can be intimidated into answering questions without their lawyer being present. One downside is that dumb people can become confused and make incriminating statements that will lead to wrongful convictions. Thugs should be locked up forever, but it's nice if the ones we lock up are the guilty thugs.
I'm surprised that this is an issue. As much as I despise Obama and anyone sleazy enough to work in his neosocialist administration, I'm surprised that even Obama would get this one wrong. I expected him to dismatle other parts of our basic freedoms first, since I foolishly thought he might value at least the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Silly me; the only thing the druggie in our White House values is power over others.
“People should learn that the police are not our friends.”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
James Duane explains why innocent people should never talk to the police.
Actually, this makes perfect sense. Make it easier to prosecute and convict law-abiding citizens first, and then you'll have additional power to keep them quiet (or locked up) when you take the other rights...
Elimination of the fifth and sixth amendments is pretty key to allow full-on Governmental coercion to sacrifice your other rights!
Mine,too. It’s as if there is an order they have to follow to take out our country...and the Marxists ARE doing it.
12 Step Destroy the U.S. Plan
True, but I expected better tactics from our neosocialist master. I thought he would go for the Second Amendment and the First Amendment before disassembling the rights that his followers value. Apparently, he's going after the entire Bill of Rights, ignoring even those ACLU liberals who believe in sections of our founding documents. I thought Obama was just evil; it's a relief to know that he's stupid too.
Add Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which says that the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws.
We are beginning to see an assult on our Constitution on a level that is frightening.
>Add Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which says that the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws.
That the retroactive AIG Bonus Taxation _DIDN’T_ cause open revolt, on that basis alone, is disturbing.
I’m enlisted, meaning I swore to uphold/defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies; answer this question: when does government become a domestic enemy?
Leftists won’t come “unglued” as long as they are the ones doing the “questioning.” Remember, the principle attribute of a leftist is hypocrisy!
How's that Hopey Changey going for you now, libtard? BTW, your phone is tapped.
“Although the Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants a right to counsel at certain critical pre-trial stages, the Amendment should not prevent a criminal defendant from waiving that right and answering questions from police following assertion of that right at arraignment."
So as its stands now, a criminal defendant, after requesting an attorney, cannot be questioned without the attorney present, even if the defendant agrees to the questioning.
And why isn’t the ACLU all over this?
Because the targets of this deprivation of rights are conservatives.
The ACLU is simply a Marxist front group, and everything they do has the goal of undermining our republic.
Are you saying that you’re surprised because this affects the least educated most of all? Such as those who live in the inner cities?
They continue to test the waters to see what they will be able to change to suit a socialist controlled state.
Exactly. I thought Obama would come for his own supporters last. I underestimated his lust for power (although married to Michelle, I can see why he would direct his urges in the direction of attaining power).
I think he’s trying to bring this country to its knees. Economically, militarily, morally, Constitutionally. He has assaulted all of those pillars of our society already. He can’t rebuild it to the vision he has until it all crashes and burns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.