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a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.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 ...
I have a feeling I am going to be put in a "put up or shut up" position in my lifetime...better dead then red, IMHO.
Oh and Janet, if you are reading this, ESAD
Still reading...
Best approach if you are arrested is to stay completely mute except for "I wish my attorney present", "I need to go to the rest room", and "I'm hungry/thirsty. I wish food/drink".
Nothing not on the above list should come out of your mouth.
The system already depends on people being ignorant. If everybody knew about, e.g., the Fully Informed Jury Association (even if they quite disagreed with its position) that would leave some trials juryless for lack of “eligible” people! (If you recognized the name of the founder of FIJA you were disqualified from jury service.)
Criminals are already intimately aware of their rights. They spend a lot of time chatting amongst themselves how to beat an arrest. It's the middle-class guy arrested for the first time who needs this.
You really miss the point. He said it was a cert petition. Cert petitions by therir very nature are one-sided. It doesn’t take much expertise to realize that. Far more interesting is the specific legal question at hand. Also, hate is a strong word. Rehnquist respected it as precedent. Do you really think he’d have been in the majority back when Miranda was decided? Scalia often backed rights even when Rehnquist wouldn’t. Apprendi, for example.
The easier to disappear you, my little sweeties.
“[L]ikely to be” says you’re currently talking out your anus.
Yes, the opposition to the rule seems to be aimed at the wrong alleged miscreants.
“She and Napolitano, a match made in Heaven. Together, 450+ lbs. of fun in the off hours.”
Oh the horror! The HORROR!
Not really, I just worded it poorly. Cert petitions are not unbiased.
Anyway, again, it’s the legal question that is interesting. You can have the most horrible set of facts imaginable, but it’s ultimately the Constitution that matters. For example, if the Constitution did not contain the 8th amendment, then there’d be nothing constitutionally wrong with the convicted being torn limb from limb. That’s the originalist point of view. Saying that something is constitutional is not the same as saying it’s moral or the right decision.
Out of curiosity, are you a libertarian?
Both the Miranda and Escobedo cases are relatively recent, circa 1968 or so. It would not surprise me if the Big Zero had his justice department go after both.
lol
Thanks...I guess your better at research..he he
Is it somehow bothering Mr Obama?
______________
Of course it’s problematic for the Kenyan Commie bast*rd
As long as the 5th stands, both decisions were pretty much redundant and meant for ignorant people to be informed of their rights, IIRC.
Myself, I am sick and tired of ignorant, complacent citizens and believe the mess we are in is largely their fault. That's also why when FReepers post "elections have consequences" kind of grates on me, maybe I just take it the wrong way though.
What if Bush did it?
My guess is that many BushBots would be praising Bush if he were to of done the same thing.
____________
BS, if Bush did it I would say the exact same thing and think he had lost his mind.
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.