Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 04/24/2009 11:06:19 PM PDT by Schnucki
The Obama administration is urging the US Supreme Court to overturn a landmark decision that stops police from questioning suspects unless they have a lawyer present.
The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups.
President Barack Obama has already provoked controversy by backing the continued imprisonment without trial of enemy combatants in Afghanistan and by limiting the rights of prisoners to challenge evidence used to convict them.
The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.
Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.
However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.
The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be "represented by counsel", but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to "protect the adversary process" in a criminal trial.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meagre benefits".
The government said that suspects have the right to remain silent, and that officers must respect that decision. But it argued that there is no reason a defendant who wants to speak without a lawyer present should not be able to respond to officers' questions.
Critics argue that the 1986 decision is important to protect vulnerable defendants such as the mentally disabled,
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Eventually ———— in the dead of night.
This is a preparation process to give his Civilian Military (KGB Types) POWER over the people.
Thanks for posting this important story!
Here’s the AP’s long version
http://tinyurl.com/cyrzru
Obama legal team wants to limit defendants’ rights
By MARK SHERMAN – 1 day ago
But the protection offered by the court in Stevens’ 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.
obuma and his fascist thugs don’t obey the law anyway. They’ll make it up as they go along. We’re heading for anarchy where “law” will be decided by who shoots fastest and most accurate.
TYRANNY!!!
Yes, and yes.
Strange.....now that Obama’s in office. One should doubt that this administration wants to get tougher on rapists, murderers thieves et al. The ulterior motive is probably political ie members of the opposition.
Here is the petition for writ of cert. It is outrageous that the cops did with this guy.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-1529_Petitioner.pdf
The proverbial tree falling in the forest question, can you put someone in a concentration camp if no one knows they are there.
I read just the other day that Hillary Clinton, when she was working on the Nixon impeachment those many years ago, asked that Nixon be denied counsel.
It's the Obama way...
Pinged for later reading.
FUBO
And why does the Obama administration believe they have the right to urge the US Supreme Court to do anything?
They are fully aware we have separation of powers in this country. The frightening thing is that they are ignoring that truth.
They have the executive branch and the legislature. Now they wants the judiciary. Remember, he’s also going after the circuit JUDGE who gave an opinion on enhanced interrogation methods.
“The 2nd amendment and our honorable military are all that’s holding it in check at this point.”
And the judiciary- don’t forget the judiciary. We are hanging on by a thread, but we still have a slim majority on the Supreme Court.
Pray for their health.
That is called the “progressive movement.”
The Progressive Movement was an effort to cure many of the ills of American society that had developed during the great spurt of industrial growth in the last quarter of the 19th century. The frontier had been tamed, great cities and businesses developed, and an overseas empire established, but not all citizens shared in the new wealth, prestige, and optimism.
Efforts to improve society were not new to the United States in the late 1800s. A major push for change, the First Reform Era, occurred in the years before the Civil War and included efforts of social activists to reform working conditions, and humanize the treatment of mentally ill people and prisoners.
Others removed themselves from society and attempted to establish utopian communities in which reforms were limited to their participants. The focal point of the early reform period was abolitionism, the drive to remove what in the eyes of many was the great moral wrong of slavery.
The second reform era began during Reconstruction and lasted until the American entry into World War I. The struggle for women’s rights and the temperance movement were the initial issues addressed. A farm movement also emerged to compensate for the declining importance of rural areas in an increasingly urbanized America.
As part of the second reform period, Progressivism was rooted in the belief, certainly not shared by all, that man was capable of improving the lot of all within society. As such, it was a rejection of Social Darwinism, the position taken by many of the rich and powerful figures of the day.
Progressivism was also imbued with strong political overtones and rejected the church as the driving force for change. Specific goals included:
The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines;
the effort to include more people more directly in the political process;
the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.
The success of Progressivism owed much to publicity generated by the muckrakers, writers who detailed the horrors of poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor, among a host of other ills.
The successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.
A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other Progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.
The Progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution, which provided for a new means to elect senators, protect society through prohibition and extend suffrage to women.
Urban problems were addressed by professional social workers who operated settlement houses as a means to protect and improve the prospects of the poor. However, efforts to place limitations on child labor were routinely thwarted by the courts. The needs of blacks and Native Americans were poorly served or served not at all — a major shortcoming of the Progressive Movement.
Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in the states and municipalities of the country as well. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.
Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the all-too-frequently corrupt mayoral system.
Formal expression was given to progressive ideas in the form of political parties on three major occasions:
The Roosevelt Progressives (Bull Moose Party) of 1912
The La Follette Progressives of the 1920s
The Henry Wallace Progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Off-site search results for “The Progressive Movement”...
ADAH: Alabama Moments (Alabama Women and the Progressive Movement)
... Movement | | Quick Summary | Details | Bibliography | Alabama Women and the Progressive Movement Dr. Marlene Hunt Rikard, Samford University Correlates to Alabama Course of Study: Social Studies 11th Grade Content Stanthe Progressive Movement Dr. Marlene Hunt Rikard, Samford University Correlates to Alabama Course of Study: Social Studies 11th Grade Content Standard 3 Correlates to ...
http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec39.html
the Progressive Movement in the 20th Century
... dawn of the 20th century in Nebraska and across the nation signaled the birth of the Progressive Movement. Supporters of the movement were found in both major political parties, Democrat and Republican. While some of thethe Progressive Movement. Supporters of the movement were found in both major political parties, Democrat and Republican. While some of the alternative parties ...
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0105.html
Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement
... agenda addressed the frustrations of farmers. Some of the historical roots of the Progressive Movement have been traced back to nineteenth century Populism, but like Roosevelt, most progressives were urban communitythe Progressive Movement have been traced back to nineteenth century Populism, but like Roosevelt, most progressives were urban community leaders with little ...
http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/Teddy/TRProgressive.html
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.