Supreme Court Decides the right to remain silent exists only if you speak up!

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

1) Gay marriage

2) Abortion

3) Miranda

4) 14th Amendment

5) 8th Amendment

Edited to add: Geneva convention right to protection from torture.

1) I couldn't care less. Call it something other than marriage with the same rights, and go bugger yourself and your boyfriend silly.

2) Not a right. Something to be determined at the state level in this country per US constitution. There is no such thing as reproductive rights. I am personally against it, and would not suggest people do it, but I would not have the government stamp down on it. I have a really good argument against it, though. If abortions were more easily available years ago, my wife wouldn't be here. I don'tknow about you, but I think that's a big loss.

3) It's a warning, not a right. The rights you're refering to are the fifth amendment's rights concerning self incrimination and right to counsel under due process (before it goes under the sixth). I am very strongly for both rights. I however am not a lunatic about it like some here who think police should never talk to anyone ever. I'm pretty comfortable being in step with the SCOTUS on this on.

4) Why would I haev a prblem with the 14th? Have I ever said I do, or are you grasping at straws to fill space?

5) Same as above.

Edit to add:
The Geneva convention protections only applies to people who abide by the Genvea convention, iirc.

Quote

2) Kid with manicured nails, if you saw my job and how greasy I get before your bagel luncheon, you'd abruptly retract that. You have all the niceties and HC, I do not. It's laughingly pathetic to read you act as tho I am pampered and you the real tough guy.

Well, you've managed to be very disrespectful, and stated absolutely nothing. Have you met me? Do you know me? Do you know anyonethat knows me? Have you ever even seen me? Do you know what I do for a living? I didn't think so, so why don't you keep your ignorant condescending statements to yourself. Can you really dispute that the essence of being far left is wanting the governemt to run and do everything?

PS- should I even bother listing all the indivdual rights that you and your kind do not support?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Well, you've managed to be very disrespectful, and stated absolutely nothing.

It's his MO. He skirts the PA rules and he knows it. Just ignore him. He rarely makes a salient point (yes I said rarely implying it does happen) and he doesn't really post that much interesting content. if we had a killfile, he'd be in many of them I bet.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

How many times a day, across the entire US, do you think an innocent person is arrested?

I know the police like to think they only arrest people that they know are guilty but A) you're wrong, you're just not that good and B) even if you're right, the presumption of innocence still exists in terms of what protections the suspect gets from the system.

What the morons fail to realize is that we don't need protection from good cops, we need protection from cops like these. This SC decision plays into the hands of bad cops.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

You have the right to remain silent.... He spoke.

The fact you have to say you want to remain silent is stupid.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

You have the right to remain silent.... He spoke.

The fact you have to say you want to remain silent is stupid.

In our country, suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Compelling a presumably innocent person to testify against himself is unconstitutional.

If the police have done their job, they should be able to convict a suspect on the basis of the evidence. Good cops do this. Bad cops think it's stupid to treat a person as if they were innocent.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

You have the right to remain silent.... He spoke.

The fact you have to say you want to remain silent is stupid.

In our country, suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Compelling a presumably innocent person to testify against himself is unconstitutional.

If the police have done their job, they should be able to convict a suspect on the basis of the evidence. Good cops do this. Bad cops think it's stupid to treat a person as if they were innocent.

THAT my dear is the problem..... WAY to many BAD COPS.

There is a presumption of guilt in so many of them of ALL of us.

We the People are seen as perps, skells, or dirtbags by those in BLUE.

There is a real bad case of THEM against US.

I used to support my local police.. but I now see them as corrupt and lazy, unwilling to protect and serve anyone but themselves

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

In our country, suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Compelling a presumably innocent person to testify against himself is unconstitutional.

That's what I said.

He had the right to keep his mouth shut, he didn't. You can't blame that on anyone but himself.

It is stupid to make a person say he is going to remain silent.

I don't know why you think I said anything else.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

He had the right to keep his mouth shut, he didn't. You can't blame that on anyone but himself.

6 out of 13 federal judges, including the 5 in the SC majority, agree with that.

The other 7 judges feel that
- he initially communicated his right to remain silent by being silent,
- the police nonetheless continued to question him, thereby bringing additional psychological pressure upon him,
- he then made statements prompted by the pressure of the additional questioning.

Alas, this argument lost by 1 vote in the SC. But it's not as though nobody gave it any credit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, you've managed to be very disrespectful, and stated absolutely nothing.

It's his MO. He skirts the PA rules and he knows it. Just ignore him. He rarely makes a salient point (yes I said rarely implying it does happen) and he doesn't really post that much interesting content. if we had a killfile, he'd be in many of them I bet.

And yet you ignore this, the worst thing said in this thread so far: I couldn't care less. Call it something other than marriage with the same rights, and go bugger yourself and your boyfriend silly.

Now I'm supposedly skiting forum rules? That blatantly kicks themn in the junk.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

How many times a day, across the entire US, do you think an innocent person is arrested?

I know the police like to think they only arrest people that they know are guilty but A) you're wrong, you're just not that good and B) even if you're right, the presumption of innocence still exists in terms of what protections the suspect gets from the system.

What the morons fail to realize is that we don't need protection from good cops, we need protection from cops like these. This SC decision plays into the hands of bad cops.

The exclusionary rule is supposed to deter police misconduct, admitting they act with misconduct.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

How many times a day, across the entire US, do you think an innocent person is arrested?

I know the police like to think they only arrest people that they know are guilty but A) you're wrong, you're just not that good and B) even if you're right, the presumption of innocence still exists in terms of what protections the suspect gets from the system.

What the morons fail to realize is that we don't need protection from good cops, we need protection from cops like these. This SC decision plays into the hands of bad cops.

The exclusionary rule is supposed to deter police misconduct, admitting they act with misconduct.

The exclusionary rule has been under attack by the right wingers since the days of Ed Meese. Alito and Roberts learned their trade under Meese.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

The exclusionary rule has been under attack by the right wingers since the days of Ed Meese. Alito and Roberts learned their trade under Meese.

History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Now I'm supposedly skiting forum rules? That blatantly kicks themn in the junk.

so complain to a mod.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The exclusionary rule has been under attack by the right wingers since the days of Ed Meese. Alito and Roberts learned their trade under Meese.

History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster.

history hasn't changed much. The bad things he did are still the same, and the debate over the good that occurred under his tenure continue. And later administrations have blown away his level of red ink.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

How many times a day, across the entire US, do you think an innocent person is arrested?

I know the police like to think they only arrest people that they know are guilty but A) you're wrong, you're just not that good and B) even if you're right, the presumption of innocence still exists in terms of what protections the suspect gets from the system.

What the morons fail to realize is that we don't need protection from good cops, we need protection from cops like these. This SC decision plays into the hands of bad cops.

The exclusionary rule is supposed to deter police misconduct, admitting they act with misconduct.

The exclusionary rule has been under attack by the right wingers since the days of Ed Meese. Alito and Roberts learned their trade under Meese.

I didn't know that, but I believe it. I did know the RW was pro-cop to the point of, "let the cops kill em all and have God sort em out. For a small chunk of my life before college I registered Republican and in 94 voted the R's into congress and even voted for Dole . It was a collection of historical / legislative events that I read about that made me switch to the Dems shortly after entering college; this was one of them.

When I learned the purpose of ER rule was to dissuade police misconduct I shit my pants. That's like saying to deter murder you counsel the murderers not to do it anymore and to levy a big fine. I have an idea, let's find dirty cops and hang their fucking pig asses out, rather than to slap their wrists and say, "bad cop, no dounut." Same with dirty prosecutors.

Esp from the school of fools (conservatives) who believe deterrence has any significant effect, it doesn't work (in it's hypothetical form) unless the punishment is severe enough to dissuade that conduct. Slapping a wrist and dissallowing evidence merely makes the misconducting cop learn how to be dirty, better.

But yea, I see conservatives as people who feel more pain when a cop gets caught being dirty over a defendant who is wrongly convicted by dirty cops. An example is a dirty Phoenix cop who was skimming Toys-for-tots toys from a drop-off point to teh tune of $5k. He was caught and:

- Not fired
- Not prosecuted

But he lost his state certification so he just couldn't work as a cop. All the cops and cop-wanna be's / conservatives at ASU in my class stood up to say the toys were abandoned. Deterrence, the way R's claim it s/b would hang his ass so he feels it and all can see too (general deterrenfce theory). Yet they, as well as the courts give the dirty cop a free ride and merely exclude teh evidence and we should all fall in behind the cop and say how fucked the system is, per conservative logic.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The exclusionary rule has been under attack by the right wingers since the days of Ed Meese. Alito and Roberts learned their trade under Meese.

History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster.

Yea, he fell to 10-12ish, then came to 10ish. Historians aren't sure what to do with him as he is so popluar. I think the debt mess will have to max out and investgation done to see when it turned ugly and taht will reveal fascist ronnie took a stable and manageable debt and tripled it, then it took GHWB/Clinton 12 years to stabilize it. Then GWB doubled that and left a turd that will take who knows how long to get under control again. The thing is, it's easy to think GWB fucked it all up as the belief is, even amongst conservatives, that GWB was incapable, but FR has all this pseudo cred amongst so many people that a denial exists to blame FR for anything. The Cold War was such a joke, esp 20 years after Guantanamo Bay, that only a true senile would pursue a war or a contest against them. They couldn't even do anything in Afghanistan and they're supposed to be able to kill us . Hell, even in WWII they had the help of most of the rest of the world and they lost 3-4 times the number of military troops than did Germany. So they were never a conventional threat, yet senile FR thought we needed to mortgage our future on that.

Yea, it might be 10-20 more years, but FR should fall to at least 20, preferably 30's.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Now I'm supposedly skiting forum rules? That blatantly kicks themn in the junk.

so complain to a mod.

It doesn't do any good, it's more fun exemplifying the lock-stepped nature of conservatives.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The exclusionary rule has been under attack by the right wingers since the days of Ed Meese. Alito and Roberts learned their trade under Meese.

History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster.

history hasn't changed much. The bad things he did are still the same, and the debate over the good that occurred under his tenure continue. And later administrations have blown away his level of red ink.

Not really, GWB and Reagan were teh same presidents policy wise. They were as funny to watch; a senile boob and a semi-retarded buffoon.

They both cut taxes for the rich, they both killed unions, they both engaged in needless military ops and they both spanked the debt as bad and left the same mess. What's that you say? GWB almost doubled the debt increase of FR. Really? 1980's dollars are worth far less than 2000's dollars, so it was about the same and done pretty much the same way; lower taxes for the rich and let the government take the hit, blame it on entitlements.

Top marginal brkt:

- Reagan: inherited 70% - left 28%

- GWB: inherited 40% - left 35%

They were really identical presidents. So when you say later administrations, which are you talking? GHWB, Clinton, GWB and/or Obama?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

It doesn't do any good, it's more fun exemplifying the lock-stepped nature of conservatives.

and hey... It's all about fun right? Not like any of this arguing is changing anyone's mind.

Troll away!

--
Rob

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The exclusionary rule has been under attack by the right wingers since the days of Ed Meese. Alito and Roberts learned their trade under Meese.

History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster.

history hasn't changed much. The bad things he did are still the same, and the debate over the good that occurred under his tenure continue. And later administrations have blown away his level of red ink.

Yes the red ink was bad, but the real legacy he left that we are having to deal with now is the systematic destruction of vital parts of the "guvment". RR set out to destroy various agencies by stuffing them full of people who were either incompetent or dedicated to the task of making their agencies completely ineffective. RR managed to convince large numbers of Americans that their "guvment" was the problem. His philosophy has had lasting effects on the ability of the People to control damage to the environment, the economy, public education, the health care system, and even the political system by greedy corporate crooks. He also left us with Kennedy and Scalia to deal with for the rest of our lives.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

RR set out to destroy various agencies by stuffing them full of people who were either incompetent or dedicated to the task of making their agencies completely ineffective.

and yet you think the "Czars" are a good thing?

LMAO

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

RR set out to destroy various agencies by stuffing them full of people who were either incompetent or dedicated to the task of making their agencies completely ineffective.

and yet you think the "Czars" are a good thing?

LMAO

Your hero, Reagan used czars, which are just advisors, so why not? Or is it that it's was used to describe a Russian ruler, so like French Fries changing to Freedom Fries, it's all in the semantics?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

1) Gay marriage

2) Abortion

3) Miranda

4) 14th Amendment

5) 8th Amendment

Edited to add: Geneva convention right to protection from torture.

Quote

1) I couldn't care less. Call it something other than marriage with the same rights, and go bugger yourself and your boyfriend silly.

So we must call it something other than marriage then, so you are opposed to gay marriage; thx for clearing that up. From homophobia to calling a hetrosexual, homosexual; you're at your usual best.

Quote

2) Not a right. Something to be determined at the state level in this country per US constitution. There is no such thing as reproductive rights. I am personally against it, and would not suggest people do it, but I would not have the government stamp down on it. I have a really good argument against it, though. If abortions were more easily available years ago, my wife wouldn't be here. I don'tknow about you, but I think that's a big loss.

Really, individual states can outlaw it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

Abortion in the United States was legal in several areas of the country before the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, but that decision made abortion uniformly legal throughout the country, except during the third trimester. The effective availability of abortion varies significantly from state to state. Abortion is one of the most contested issues in U.S. society, law and politics.

Even tho it can be modified to a degree by states, it is a federal law under SCOTUS case law and is mandatorily distributed to the states via the 14th.

The wife argument is great on a personal level, irrelevant on a national level or statistically. But it's good to see a fine family values guy like you calling straight people, gay and advocating gay sex while denouncing gay marriage. At least the RW electorate matches their nominees/representatives.

Quote

3) It's a warning, not a right. The rights you're refering to are the fifth amendment's rights concerning self incrimination and right to counsel under due process (before it goes under the sixth). I am very strongly for both rights. I however am not a lunatic about it like some here who think police should never talk to anyone ever. I'm pretty comfortable being in step with the SCOTUS on this on.

So then "Miranda rights" don't exist? http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

Aside from that, the miranda warning is fundamental to inalienable rights, such as right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, search and seizure, etc. To think that a semantic title can separate these fundamental inalienable rights is ridiculous. If no Miranda read, then inalienable rights are jeopardized, hence Miranda is a right unless no question occurrs between police and suspect. We go back to your earlier assertion that a suspect must be Mirandized before he can be arrested. Well, that is untrue, a suspect must be Mirandized before questioning while in custody. If the police aren't going to question suspect after arrest, no Miranda is neccessary and no right to Miranda exists, once questioning is going to take place, then the rights at risk must be warned under Miranda. Again, Miranda is a warning and is a right, if questioning while in custody.

Apparently you're not in step with the SCOTUS. As you stated, it sucks that suspects must be Mirandized prior to arrest, meaning you disagree with Miranda.

Quote

4) Why would I haev a prblem with the 14th? Have I ever said I do, or are you grasping at straws to fill space?

You don't have to say you do, you are for AZ SB 1070, right?

Quote

5) Same as above.

Right, but I'm sure you have no issue with prisoners being abused, after all, you call pre-convicts, dirtbags. We probably have a different definition of cruel and unusual.

Edit to add:
The Geneva convention protections only applies to people who abide by the Genvea convention, iirc.

Quote

2) Kid with manicured nails, if you saw my job and how greasy I get before your bagel luncheon, you'd abruptly retract that. You have all the niceties and HC, I do not. It's laughingly pathetic to read you act as tho I am pampered and you the real tough guy.

Quote

Well, you've managed to be very disrespectful, and stated absolutely nothing.

You just called me gay and now you're pouting? Be glad that Bill will never do anything and you can take all the shots you want and just get over it.

Quote

Have you met me? Do you know me? Do you know anyonethat knows me? Have you ever even seen me?

I see your picture; speaks volumes of what you're about in correlation with what you write.

Quote

Do you know what I do for a living?

I'm guessing cop.

Quote

I didn't think so, so why don't you keep your ignorant condescending statements to yourself.

Bipolarity. From, "me feelings are hurt" to " you must be gay and you're a fucking ignorant, condescending ahole." They have pills for that condition.

Quote

Can you really dispute that the essence of being far left is wanting the governemt to run and do everything?

Capitalism: The elite running the market.

Communism: The government running everything for their benefit.

Socialism: The government running most things for the benefit of the people.

So the far left you ask. Well, in my world that's Socialsm, in yours that's Communism. I would like Canadian Socialism or something like that. To you that's far left and then some, to me that's moderate left.

That aside, how has corporate America done since fascist pig Ronnie has turned it all over to corporate America? You like the result? Debt frrom 900B to 13T? Before that taxes were always > 70% top brkt since FDR, then we entered the Republican Corporate Mess we are now in with masssive debt; is that your idea of Nirvana?

Quote

PS- should I even bother listing all the indivdual rights that you and your kind do not support?

Only if you want to make an argument, which is unlikely. But remember, thsi was about you saying you SUPPORT A PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Now you're trying to make is as if you meant strict constitutional rights.

Quote

Edit to add:
The Geneva convention protections only applies to people who abide by the Genvea convention, iirc.

Yet we attacked Iraqi government when they had nothing to do with 911, then the subsequent prisoners were tortured. It must be fun to move the pegs as we need to.

Now, back to your point: ...I believe in individual rights, including being allowed to make a mistake. It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support.

Individual rights, including the right to be treated humanely while incarcerated under any condition? So even if the combatants aren't protected under Geneva, do you support a person's individual right to not be tortured? To not be humiliated for sport? Yea, perhaps whittle-down that global assertion you made to virtually nothing.

• Quote

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

The Geneva convention protections only applies to people who abide by the Genvea convention, iirc.

The restrictions apply to the USA, because the USA ratified them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The Geneva convention protections only applies to people who abide by the Genvea convention, iirc.

The restrictions apply to the USA, because the USA ratified them.

Not to mention he wrote, "individual rights" which encompass all kinds of rights, not just all of the many codified rights, but human rights, etc