Skip to comments.Obama wants to end 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson(defendants right to lawyer before questioning)
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a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.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 ...
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
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
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.
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.
Yet Obama isn’t going all-out fascist on everything possible. For example, state medpot programs. Holder swears he will leave them alone which is tantamount to nullifying the Federal law. Why this curious gap?
Once those three decisions go, the next thing will be questioning. “We think you’re guilty, therefore you are.” End of it.
By the way, what is Jindal saying about this Louisiana case, if anything? I'd seriously want to know before I know how vigorously I want to support his being the GOP presidential or vice presidential candidate in 2012 in the presence of other viable candidates. (Like I would say about Scalia, better Jindal than nothing.)
Are you a BushBot?
Are you a BushBot?
Is there any public civil rights education counterpart to the ACLU which isn’t dedicated to pressing lefty social issues like gay marriage and abortion? Jay Sekulow’s ACLJ doesn’t answer to this need, as it is almost completely focused on religion issues. Libertarian groups are too alarmist for many people, and/or press other social issues (e.g. drugs) that many see as peripheral. I mean it’s pretty bad if you have to be Michael Dukakis to carry a card that reminds you of when to remain silent.
That's my concern. I do think that you a moron if you don't know your rights, but Obama’s policies are scary to me. I feel there might be more to this. Yes, I could be overreacting, but I don't trust this guy at all, now way, no how...no nothing.
Again, the status quo legal system depends on morons.
This is why we have Trident Subs. The ultimate reset button on tyranny, should the government ever try for dictatorship.
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.
lets not forget that the Great one is a constitutional lawyer ... perhaps the communist soviet constitution .. but constitutional lawyer none the less.
he knows what is best for all of us
we shall not question him
we shall obey his wishes because he is omnipotent and omni present
we shall support his every whim because we are his people and he will lead us to a better tomorrow ...
oops .. sorry ..... was practicing my tirade being an obot for when they come to take me to the re-education camp.
No, I don't think you are over reacting at all.
The policies of this administration should scare anyone who understands what freedom is and what the founding principles of this country are and what makes them so special.
The problem is most people don't understand, or even care. For example, when they see GM being overtaken and the CEO fired by zer0, ask somebody if that should matter or is it to them and you will probably just get a blank stare. With no freedom in their mind at risk, they will certainly never contemplate the implications of it all, in fact, they will probably celebrate the fact a crusty 'ol CEO was gotten even with.
Thanks to our educational system, vast wealth complete with all the luxuries even for the poor in this country, lack of a truly challenging life and the "it could never happen here" crowd, freedom is indeed just another word for nothing left to lose.
I guess people don’t really get IT... The Democrats Screaming about Bush was basically a reflection of what they were going to do when they got power. They screamed about it because it was BUSH in the WH and not one of their guys....
Its so damn scary its sick.
Those bastards! Everyone should be taught about the 5th amendment and to never talk to the police, unless you have been the victim of a crime. The police and prosecutors aren’t worth taking a risk on. There will be plenty of time to talk to the police/prosecution after you’ve hired a lawyer.