Posted on 04/25/2009 1:04:36 PM PDT by 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a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.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”.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Obama does call the Bill of Rights as “anti-Constitutional rights”.
That would be where this is going, Overturn Miranda and Escobedo. Of course since conservatives railed against those Warren Court decisions it may be a bit hypocritical for conservatives to oppose the haloed one on this. Of course with the last wekk as a guide, it will be conservatives in the dock.
Yes, but if you wanted an attorney present for questioning it would take away that right. Yes, everyone gets a lawyer in court, but they should also have one during questioning if they so desire. Why do you think it’s a good idea to overturn it?
Except it’s not. Michigan v. Jackson was wrongly decided.
Making it easier and easier for his brownshirts to come for you. Defense??? What defense? You swine have no defense against us.
One might claim that the Miranda is enough, that the person should know better than to talk after that. But a psychologically vulnerable person (this is not equivalent to a criminal person) might be yet coerced into talking. It is not “freaking out” to show a genuine concern, so you only put forth a straw man.
Wrong. You still get one during questioning. That’s not what this is about.
If you read it, what do you think?
You would want the subject to be kept ignorant of this if he already was.
This will call Miranda in question shortly.
Have you read the petition for Cert linked in post #35, or the amicus brief filed by numerous former federal judges, prosecutors and a former Director of the FBI supporting the upholding of Michigan v. Jackson?
Read the petition and you will change your mind.
Forget that, wait until emergency medical health powers are enacted, and you become a felon for resisting a vaccine the government says you have to take.
No it won’t. There was a recent case confirming Miranda.
This was one of the unfortunate little “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” hideyholes in the old tradition. Where it was presumed that the government was OK to carry on whatever con game it managed to succeed at. Its elimination came squarely under the rubric of due process of law. We are not talking about Roe v. Wade penumbra of emanation sophistries here.
I am quite familiar with Michigan v Jackson. I’m also quite aware of how one-sided what you posted is likely to be. BTW, it was the Court itself that asked parties a few weeks ago to file on the question of whether Jackson should be overruled. This was after oral argument. It’s quite rare for the Court to do that, so odds are very good that there are five votes to overrule.
Or looking from the other side, odds are good there are 5 votes to sustain. (Probably Kennedy is the one in a quandary.)
Look here. Note that this was months after oral argument http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1529.htm
The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: Should Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), be overruled? The briefs, not to exceed 6,000 words, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, April 14, 2009. Amicus briefs, not to exceed 4,500 words, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon counsel to the parties on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, April 14, 2009. Reply briefs, not to exceed 3,000 words, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, April 24, 2009.
The fact that you comment before going and reading it shows how one sided you are, and all the more so with all the expertise you claim. We know you are a Nino (Scalia) fan. Scalia hates Miranda, we know that. Rehnquist did not.
He is going to take away Miranda before we know it
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.