what is funny is that people that call themselves conservative are pushing for the transfer of power to the govt and transfer of money to big corporation. and the people that call themselves liberal care only of what other people think of them.nobody id interested in liberty anymore
"Badop Bap Bop BAAAAAAA....I'm lovin it!" Haha every friggin day there is something new....Our government is out of control..it seems the monkeys are running the circus now
I hadn't realised individuals are losing more rights over in the States than they are over here in the UK. I can't believe they would take such a step backwards?!?
It seems considerably worse in America, surprisingly. I think it's because America is just about the only free country left and for the world to be enslaved by the banking elite, America has to fall first.
Obama isn't conservative and he was for this. But yes. Too often conservatives fight for the transfer of more rights in the name of security, forgetting the wise admonition of one of the founding fathers... "Those that give up necessary liberty for security deserve neither." I am a Conservative Libertarian with full knowledge that today's Neo-Conservative is neither new or conservative.
All this decision says is that should someone choose to waive their right to counsal after invoking their rights than they are allowed to do it. It doesn't change anything. This is common practice in the military. The government can't pick and choose when a person waives their rights, that is the BIGGEST problem with today, too big of government. The person still has the right to speak privately with a lawyer, before, during, and after questioning, and to have a lawyer present with them during questioning. They are still advised of their rights due to SCOTUS decisions such as Miranda v. Arizona. Should a person choose to waive their rights than hey, thats their own problem. THere is no liberty here, just SCOTUS pulling the governments nose out of places it doesn't belong.
I'd have to read the actual decision before making a firm conclusion, but based on the OP's quote, I'd have to disagree, Host. Key here is timing - when the accused "chooses" to waive rights. Stevens is right in his dissent, as are the amicus briefs taking the majority to task. This lacunae in the presumption under Miranda opens a whole can of worms regarding proper interrogations, that could potentially screw up a whole lot more than just the instant issue. Further, Scalia's reasoning is absurd (again, admittedly basing my conclusion only on the excerpt in the OP's post): to inveigh against Michigan because of its supposed negligible benefit (the prevention of coercive interrogations) and supposed monumental costs (a "chilling effect" on "society's benefit" in criminal justice) is utterly not his job - his job is to judge the constitutionality of a given lower court test case. I'm surprised, to be honest, that those who regularly condemn SCOTUS for "activism" are not up in arms over this one - as this is precisely what Scalia is undertaking, activism in the name of criminal justice prosecution, the constitutionality of the rejection of Michigan apparently untouched. But I will read the decision, to see if I've misread something here.
Actually they don't. This ruling is about people who did request a lawyer and were not given one. Then they are repeatedly asked to speak without counsel until they give in - having never been able to speak to the counsel they requested. It is not much a right if you invoke it, they don't give you the lawyer, and they keep asking you to talk.
I think this attitude is part of the problem. The US isn't even nearly the most free country, but as long as they think it is they will continue to put up with this kind of stuff safe in the (incorrect) knowledge that they are "the only free country".
I'm basing my opinion off the excerpt/OP as well. Asking several times can seem coercive in nature as it is. And the fact that the decision this one overturned says it is unconstitutional because the person is waiving that right without the advice of counsal is a load of crap. TBH advising someone they have the right to remail silent, they have to right to an attorney, and anything they say ccan and will be used against them is enough. The fact that people don't know enough about their rights says it all. There are certain exceptions where, IMO, it is ok, such as age, mental issues, etc. but if you are a person, who is of the age of majority, it is your own fault for not knowing the constitutional rights guaranteed to you, as that is tought in school. However, advising them is fine. BUT, it should be based on circumstances, i.e. was the person asked repeatedly in quick succession to speak/advised of their rights? Or was the person advised of their rights, they invoke requesting legal counsal, and then a week or so later after their bail hearing they are reapproached. The way we ran things when I was in the military was we would advise them of their rights, if they invoked them we would reapproach them in 72 hours minimum to make sure they were given adequete time to seek legal counsal. However, in the case of military law, things are quite differant. People aren't actually arrested. they are temporarily apprehended and then released to their unit after interviewing. And the commander is the one that prefers charges, not law enforcement.
As the saying goes Military justice is to justice, as Military music is to music. Anyway, it is not really a relevant comparison since there are totally different laws and rules that govern the military versus civilian judicial systems.
Maybe thats why I have the view I do when it comes to that, I used to investigate drug crimes and other felony's (mostly drug crimes, I was on a drug suppression team lol) while I was in the Army, and I was an MP as well lmao. . Your right though, military music is to music as Military justics is to justice. Theres the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way. Thats what we used to say.