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.)
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.
Based on your screen name, would it be fair to say that you are a fan of Scalia? If so, so am I.
I personally think the request for briefs on Michigan v. Jackson is because that issue was not raised by either party initially and the court does not rule on matters not presented.
I think the court will reaffirm Jackson by at least 6-3 and Thomas and Scalia will be in the majority, just like they were in the recent automobile search case.
As for the brief I posted, please note that the amicus brief filed on behalf of numerous former federal judges, federal prosecutors and the former Director of the FBI strongly supports upholding Jackson. Many of them appointed during Reagan’s term in office.