Skip to comments.
Axelrod: Obama Open To Lossening Miranda (Video)
CNN ^
| 5/10/10
| David Axelrod
Posted on 05/11/2010 6:55:28 AM PDT by careyb
What if Bush had said this?
TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: axelrod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
To: careyb
Hat's Off to Miranda!!
21
posted on
05/11/2010 9:03:00 AM PDT
by
Young Werther
("Quae cum ita sunt" Since these things are so!)
To: careyb; Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...
22
posted on
05/11/2010 9:13:29 AM PDT
by
Nachum
(The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
To: Nachum
Why is Miranda even necessary? It should be part of the citizenship test, part of high school freshman year instruction, and then that’s that.
23
posted on
05/11/2010 9:20:06 AM PDT
by
Loud Mime
(Californians: Ck out Lydia Gutierrez - lydiaforkids2010.com)
To: Loud Mime
Remember, Eric Holder supported miranda rights for foreign terrorists, but now he wants to waive them for US citizens, accused of terrorism. Miranda rights insure that the suspect will not be abused by authorities without being represented by an attorney. Without the miranda rights, the police could lock you in a room and interrogate you for days before they allowed you access to an attorney. Obama doesn’t want this for foreign terrorists, just US citizens, who he deems to be a threat to HIS government.
24
posted on
05/11/2010 9:23:46 AM PDT
by
Eva
To: Pollster1
The Supremes don’t just get involved.
Obama has to change the current administration’s interpretation (redefine the Exigent Circumstances Rule) and administer it. Then, it gets challenged and heads for SCOTUS if it gets that far.
That’s how it’s always worked, with any constitutional challenge.
25
posted on
05/11/2010 9:40:02 AM PDT
by
SJSAMPLE
To: SJSAMPLE
Calling it settled law is a mistake, since its not law but interpretation.I am no lawyer - maybe you are - but my understanding is that an interpretation embodied in a court decision is law. It can change, but so can any man-made law. In that regard, asserting "settled law" is really subjective (perhaps a rhetorical attempt to cut off challenges?): it is only "settled" until the next decision or legislation or amendment.
For example, I believe Roe v Wade was a poor and unprincipled decision, but it is still the law - for now. And I would assert that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, and I would like to insist that it is "unsettled"; but it still IS law (sadly, just like Roe v Wade) until it is overturned or repealed.
Am I all wet?
26
posted on
05/11/2010 10:22:55 AM PDT
by
Nevermore
(...just a typical cracker, clinging to my Constitutional rights...)
To: careyb
Axelrod & Obama now on very thin ice.
27
posted on
05/11/2010 10:24:11 AM PDT
by
Vaduz
To: Nevermore
That would mean that any decision from a judge would be law.
I believe the term we're talking about is "case law", which describes the interpretation of existing law and provides precedent for future rulings. That is, unless future rulings determine that previous rulings ("settled law/case law") to be incorrect. Again, we're back to interpretation, but laws (the real ones) can only be written by the legislature and enacted by the executive branch, per our Constitution.
Either way, Exigent Circumstances to the Miranda Rule already exist and have been upheld. In cases were lives are on the line, a Miranda warning is not required. They just want to expand the definition of "Exigent Circumstances" and I'm OK with that, because I've always felt that your rights are not based upon somebody else's requirement to explain them to you. If you don't already know your rights, you don't have any.
28
posted on
05/11/2010 10:36:42 AM PDT
by
SJSAMPLE
To: LibFreeUSA
This is not a light-hearted thread and has nothing to do with babes in bikinis. I may be the only one, but this is not amusing.
—perhaps you are in the wrong forum?
29
posted on
05/11/2010 5:13:00 PM PDT
by
Freedom56v2
("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
To: careyb
30
posted on
05/11/2010 5:16:51 PM PDT
by
Freedom56v2
("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
To: bushwon
-"This is not a light-hearted thread and has nothing to do with babes in bikinis. I may be the only one, but this is not amusing." Boy, you need to 'chill-out'.
31
posted on
05/12/2010 5:47:46 AM PDT
by
LibFreeUSA
(Show me what Obama brought that was new and there you will find things only radical and destructive.)
To: LibFreeUSA
Sorry, I don’t have much of a sense of humor when it comes to what is happening to our country and how it will be left for our children and yet-to-be-born grandkids.
I will chill-out in 2010 or 2012; but for now, I am serious and focused on our loss of liberties such as the loosening of Miranda rights.
32
posted on
05/12/2010 6:51:20 AM PDT
by
Freedom56v2
("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
To: bushwon
All being said - I fully support your ‘serious’ side to this post.
33
posted on
05/12/2010 8:33:39 AM PDT
by
LibFreeUSA
(Show me what Obama brought that was new and there you will find things only radical and destructive.)
To: careyb
34
posted on
05/12/2010 8:34:07 AM PDT
by
Grunthor
(Over YOUR dead body!)
To: LibFreeUSA
Thanks—much appreciated. I just don’t find much levity in anything these days—I am hoping things change a lot in 2010! Till then, I will be vigilant and not have much of a sense of humor.
35
posted on
05/12/2010 11:56:14 AM PDT
by
Freedom56v2
("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson