Specter is doing a good job. He is setting a good example - he isn't making acusations, and his questions are specific with well defined context and substance.
Alito is giving good answers re: stare decisis and reliance by the public; but I think was vague at the end of that. Not to worry, he'll be grilled on stare decisis a few times today.
The Miranda rule is one of convenience for the courts - it creates a bright line that is easy to judge. The alternative (to Miranda) creates a matter of judgement for the court as to whether or not a confession was voluntary. Scalia talked about this in Dickerson ...
Today's judgment converts Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching into the very Cheops' Pyramid (or perhaps the Sphinx would be a better analogue) of judicial arrogance. In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today's decision does not pretend that it is--and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people's representatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe we cannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision--especially a celebrated decision--that has come to stand for the proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraints upon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, or that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.I dissent from today's decision, and, until §3501 is repealed, will continue to apply it in all cases where there has been a sustainable finding that the defendant's confession was voluntary.
Dang - there goes super precedent and super stare decisis.
Specter advocates having the Court adopt and decide social hot button issues, and has said so. THis is a popular approach for legislators becuase it gets them off the hook of accountability.
I this is among the many reasons that I am very uncomfortable with Specter as the head of the judiciary committee. It's not just his pro-life stance, it's his judicial philosophy.
Yes, but from what I saw yesterday .. the Dems won't take the hint
It will be another attempt to slash and burn for them