Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36
  1. #1

    Default Losing Our Rights - The 5th Amendment

    Today the Supreme Court tweaked the Fifth Amendment by its 5-4 ruling which alters the Miranda ruling. Interesting that the political right is not overly concerned about weakening the Fifth Amendment.


    From the L.A. Times:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1344181.story

    "In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, declaring that whenever a person is taken into police custody, before being questioned he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statements. As a result of Miranda, anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questioned:

    The Supreme Court backed off Tuesday from strict enforcement of its historic Miranda decision, ruling that a crime suspect's words can be used against him if he fails to clearly tell police that he does not want to talk.

    In the past, the court said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect had "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights...

    But in Tuesday's 5-4 decision, the court shifted the balance in favor of the police, saying a suspect has a duty to speak up and say he does not want to talk.

    Moreover, the police are "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect's "right to remain silent before interrogating him," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote."




    Miranda Warning:

    1.You have the right to remain silent.

    2.Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

    3.You have the right to an attorney.

    4.If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

    Read the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision: Miranda v. Arizona. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=384&invol=436

    Obama's appointee Sotomayer wrote the minority opinion but Obama's current nominee Kagan appears to be on the other side of this issue.

    The Fifth Amendment:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    More on the Fifth and Police interrogation: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt05/09.html#1


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    1,203

    Default

    The responses will be a combination of:

    1. Stay out of trouble and you don't have to worry about it.

    2. If people aren't smart enough to be quiet they deserve what they get.

    I'm still not sure how I feel about this ruling.
    Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.

  3. #3

    Default

    [QUOTE=Section201;226229]Today the Supreme Court tweaked the Fifth Amendment by its 5-4 ruling which alters the Miranda ruling. Interesting that the political right is not overly concerned about weakening the Fifth Amendment.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is interesting but entirely predictable. Restrictions on police actions, the rights of the accused, and freedom of speech rank at the bottom of the list of Constitutional rights that Right Wingers really care about. We all know what ranks at the top.

  4. #4

    Default Looks Like A Good Decision To Me.

    Typical ignorant uninformed leftist responses I expected.

  5. #5

    Default Confused...

    It never ceases to amaze me, the ability of folks to turn just about anything into a "Right vs Left" issue... In all honesty, it's these people that scare me the most; those that feel so ardently and passionately against those on the other side of the political fence; the ones that automatically are opposed to a stance taken by those on the other side and blindly stand in unison with the stances taken by those of their own political persuasion.

    It also never ceases to amaze me the issues that get some people so worked up and in many instances it's things that will never begin to affect them; like fur or whatever else you can think of.

    I don't exactly know what's specifically prompting this particular ruling, nor do I know whether it's a good thing or not; I can only guess it's frustration with numerous criminal offenders going free on the technicality that they MAY not have been read their proper Miranda rights.

    Are many of you really going to lose sleep over this one? Please tell me no...

  6. #6

    Default Les

    Quote Originally Posted by LesBolstad View Post
    Typical ignorant uninformed leftist responses I expected.
    I see the glue vapors have cleared enough so you could type a sentence. Great to have you drop in!


  7. Default

    This ruling doesn't really bother me considering the actual case. He asserted his right to remain silent until he confessed. He never said he didn't want to talk and never asked for a lawyer. The argument of his lawyer is that by not talking, he asserted his right to remain silent. However, wouldn't he relinquish that right by talking?

    Of course I'm a right wing nut job...

  8. #8

    Default OO

    Quote Originally Posted by Ogee Oglethorpe View Post
    It never ceases to amaze me, the ability of folks to turn just about anything into a "Right vs Left" issue... In all honesty, it's these people that scare me the most; those that feel so ardently and passionately against those on the other side of the political fence; the ones that automatically are opposed to a stance taken by those on the other side and blindly stand in unison with the stances taken by those of their own political persuasion.

    It also never ceases to amaze me the issues that get some people so worked up and in many instances it's things that will never begin to affect them; like fur or whatever else you can think of.

    I don't exactly know what's specifically prompting this particular ruling, nor do I know whether it's a good thing or not; I can only guess it's frustration with numerous criminal offenders going free on the technicality that they MAY not have been read their proper Miranda rights.

    Are many of you really going to lose sleep over this one? Please tell me no...
    OO,

    While not losing any sleep over this I did find it an interesting ruling when viewed against the constant drumbeat of the anti-Obama crowd that says every day the President and the lefties are taking our rights away.


    Here is an example of the conservative justices, and Kennedy, ruling in favor of the government in narrowing the manner in which citizens can avoid self incrimination. I admit to being a little confused at how this case got as far as it did as the suspect was given his Miranda rights, admitted to understanding them, but had not signed a waiver, which was not legally required, just advisable. Then he proceeds to talk.

    What I do question is why the court moved to change the rules of the game. Obviously the ruling will affect lefties and righties as it has been proven through history the criminals and those suspected of crimes come in all political flavors.

    The founding fathers found it appropriate to put the "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" language in the fifth amendment so they must have thought it important.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section201 View Post
    OO,

    While not losing any sleep over this I did find it an interesting ruling when viewed against the constant drumbeat of the anti-Obama crowd that says every day the President and the lefties are taking our rights away.


    Here is an example of the conservative justices, and Kennedy, ruling in favor of the government in narrowing the manner in which citizens can avoid self incrimination. I admit to being a little confused at how this case got as far as it did as the suspect was given his Miranda rights, admitted to understanding them, but had not signed a waiver, which was not legally required, just advisable. Then he proceeds to talk.

    What I do question is why the court moved to change the rules of the game. Obviously the ruling will affect lefties and righties as it has been proven through history the criminals and those suspected of crimes come in all political flavors.

    The founding fathers found it appropriate to put the "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" language in the fifth amendment so they must have thought it important.

    All the ruling said was that if you don't want to talk, you have to say you aren't talking.

  10. #10

    Default

    I do not think that the ruling is out of line with the wording in the law. You can reasonably infer that compel means force. Other interpretations are reasonable, as well. The ruling could be made either way, and I am fine with both outcomes, generally speaking. I'm sure in case specific scenarios I could flip between either side.

  11. #11

    Default

    The ruling seems a bit troublesome. The idea is to avoid coerced confessions. Now I think we've just created a system where coercion will be the norm. Without the waiver, where's the proof that the suspect was a willing confessor?

    Suspect, "I don't want to talk"

    Officer 1, "did you hear something?"

    Officer 2, "no, I think maybe my stomach, I think it's going to be growling all night. We are going to be here all night aren't we?"

    Officer 1, "yeah, this guy has a lot to say and i don't want to miss any of it."

    Suspect, "I don't want to talk"

    Officer 1, "there it is again, man you better get some pepto."

  12. #12

    Default

    [QUOTE=UpnorthGo4;226233]
    Quote Originally Posted by Section201 View Post
    Today the Supreme Court tweaked the Fifth Amendment by its 5-4 ruling which alters the Miranda ruling. Interesting that the political right is not overly concerned about weakening the Fifth Amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Section201 View Post
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is interesting but entirely predictable. Restrictions on police actions, the rights of the accused, and freedom of speech rank at the bottom of the list of Constitutional rights that Right Wingers really care about. We all know what ranks at the top.
    The left is bent on protecting criminals and rights for people that don't belong here or hate us. This is why the left aligns so well with lawyers and nations led by people like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

    The right has more concentrated on protecting rights and liberty for the innocent, the unborn and those who are citizens and friends of our country.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    The left is bent on protecting criminals and rights for people that don't belong here or hate us. This is why the left aligns so well with lawyers and nations led by people like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

    The right has more concentrated on protecting rights and liberty for the innocent, the unborn and those who are citizens and friends of our country.
    In school, long ago, I was taught that in America you are innocent until proven guilty. By definition, then, people in police interragations are innocent. By your assessment the right should be clamoring to protect these people's rights.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ruralgopher View Post
    In school, long ago, I was taught that in America you are innocent until proven guilty. By definition, then, people in police interragations are innocent. By your assessment the right should be clamoring to protect these people's rights.
    There's a balance. Common sense is required to avoid screwing up the system beyond repair.

  15. #15

    Default

    [QUOTE=bga1;226891]
    Quote Originally Posted by UpnorthGo4 View Post
    [I]

    The left is bent on protecting criminals and rights for people that don't belong here or hate us. This is why the left aligns so well with lawyers and nations led by people like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

    The right has more concentrated on protecting rights and liberty for the innocent, the unborn and those who are citizens and friends of our country.
    Beej: Do you honestly know anyone who supports Ahmadinejad or Chavez? If you want to make an argument, make an argument, not a goofy caricature.

    You could try using facts like refering to the polls that show that 40% of Republicans think that Obama is a socialist and 24% think that he is a terrorist. Facts, beej. Substance. Not goofy outlandish statements.

  16. #16

    Default

    >>...and 24% think that he is a terrorist.<<

    Talk about "goofy outlandish"...

    Obama's too aloof and incompetent to be much of a terrorist.

  17. #17

    Default

    In the West thread G4L says:

    201,

    You know they're not tea baggers. Why persist in being so disrespectful?

    Now he says:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gopher4Life View Post
    Obama's too aloof and incompetent to be much of a terrorist.

  18. #18

    Default

    [QUOTE=jamiche;226924]
    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post

    Beej: Do you honestly know anyone who supports Ahmadinejad or Chavez? If you want to make an argument, make an argument, not a goofy caricature.

    You could try using facts like refering to the polls that show that 40% of Republicans think that Obama is a socialist and 24% think that he is a terrorist. Facts, beej. Substance. Not goofy outlandish statements.
    Obama has given better treatment to Iran than Israel. Chavez? Are you serious? Chavez is a darling of many Hollywood types and Hollywood leads the left. Chavez is the reason that we haven't followed through with trade deals with Columbia- a nation that HAS gotten its act together. The general rule with Obama is that it has been much better to be an enemy of the US than a friend - you get a lot better treatment and you have his subtantial set of ears.

  19. Default beej

    Upstream you posted this:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Section201
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is interesting but entirely predictable. Restrictions on police actions, the rights of the accused, and freedom of speech rank at the bottom of the list of Constitutional rights that Right Wingers really care about. We all know what ranks at the top.


    This is NOT a qoute from me. I did not write that bit.


  20. #20

    Default

    [QUOTE=bga1;226932]
    Quote Originally Posted by jamiche View Post

    Obama has given better treatment to Iran than Israel. Chavez? Are you serious? Chavez is a darling of many Hollywood types and Hollywood leads the left. Chavez is the reason that we haven't followed through with trade deals with Columbia- a nation that HAS gotten its act together. The general rule with Obama is that it has been much better to be an enemy of the US than a friend - you get a lot better treatment and you have his subtantial set of ears.
    Chavez is the darling of "Hollywood types". For example?

    I'm not thrilled with Obama's policy on Israel (though I'm hopeful that it will end up better for the Israelis than Bush's unconditional love) but do you really think that he has been more supportive of Iran than Israel?

    If you are going to make an argument, try to go beyond Fox sound bytes. "Hollywood types"? Goofy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  









Get Adobe Flash player