Obama wants to end 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson(defendants right to lawyer before questioning)

Hot Air ^ | 25 APR 2009 | Ed Morrissey

[Bush Revolution]

The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested. They argue that the benefits are “meagre,” as the Telegraph puts it:

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. …

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a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.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”.

[Bush Revolution]

Hummmmmm...

[Shady]

Your Dear Leader needs this omnipotence. No soup for you, Conservative Swine. Guilty. To the Camp!

[Las Vegas Ron]

Until he overturns the 5th Amendment, he can KMA.

Is he looking to overturn Miranda too?

[trumandogz]

Burning the Bill of Rights one Amendment at a time.

[Bush Revolution]

Well said...Ummm paging the anti-american ACLU?????????? The list is already so long for the “What is Bush did this?” 100 days already feels like 100 years...And he hasn't even warmed up yet it seems.

[Bush Revolution]

That would be...What if Bush did it?

[bill1952]

Interesting.

This gains him no political points at all, and no real power either.
Anyone who doesn't know the 5th amendment & also thinks for some weird reason that he HAS to talk to the cops after being arrested is probably a liberal ipso facto.

[eclecticEel]

The ACLU has determined that the “good guys” (e.g. them) are now in charge, and there’s no further need for civil liberties. The left never changes.

[Snickering Hound]

The Constitution is counter-revolutionary.

[scratcher]

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”.

Then why end it? Is it somehow bothering Mr Obama?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Step 1 of eliminating liberty. The civilian police force will then have an unnecessary burden removed.

Hussein’s world.

[Bush Revolution]

“This gains him no political points at all, and no real power either.”

My thoughts, so why do it? I really don’t get this guy.

[rrrod]

not a peep from RATS on this because all registerd Democrats love State power. They will cheer at mobs publically lynching any free thinkers.

[Mr_Moonlight]

Is he looking to overturn Miranda too?

It appears so

[2nd amendment mama]

Original article already posted here

[scratcher]

“My thoughts, so why do it? I really don’t get this guy.”

It's hard to understand the mind of a commie.

[Bush Revolution]

Thanks

original thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2237479/posts

[HiTech RedNeck]

Obama would doubtless be among the screamers and cryers if this had taken place under Bush.

[bill1952]

I really don’t get this guy.

It is a puzzle, isn't it?

Probably, this is a pet project of someone connected to him in some way.

[popdonnelly]

This makes absolutely no sense at all. I’m no ACLU type, but the right to counsel is in the Constitution for good reason.