ChangoLanzao

Before I even read the decision, THAT'S what I'VE been saying. This is a bunch of double-speak. The police can easily avoid this "ambiguity" by simply asking the suspect, "do you wish to remain silent?"

What's your point?

Was this guy an elected official, or just a party chief representing a bunch of crooked politicians?

We do. CLICKY

Since the entire U.S. economy depends upon transport of goods, using gas, that pretty much is an admission that when the price of gas goes up to make up for the shortfall from the government removing the oil company tax breaks, then the price of ALL goods will increase, along with the price of gas. It will be worth it.

I didn't mean that the mother should become a citizen

"Seizing on a disastrous oil spill to advance a cause, President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Congress to roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil and pass a clean-energy bill that he says would help the nation end its dependence on fossil fuels." Excellent! CLICKY

Can you say that in Lakota? Not that old grind? You're about 150-yrs. too late and we had nothin' to do with it. All we can deal with is what is happening today. The past has passed. Chuck Exactly. The U.S. born children of illegal immigrants say, "too late and we had nothin' to do with it. All we can deal with is what is happening today. The past has passed." I don't believe in amnesty. Should an illegal gat caught, even after several years, either send them to their native country or fine them severely. If, they skip the country without paying the fine, they don't get back in this country. Chuck That's fine, but any children born while they were in the U.S. are natural born citizens regardless of their ancestors' status.

Let me clarify that for you. NO

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" No. Irrelevant.

Can you say that in Lakota? Not that old grind? You're about 150-yrs. too late and we had nothin' to do with it. All we can deal with is what is happening today. The past has passed. Chuck Exactly. The U.S. born children of illegal immigrants say, "too late and we had nothin' to do with it. All we can deal with is what is happening today. The past has passed."

I think that this is the most interesting practical question had the court decided the other way... How do you decide whether a suspect is invoking the right by simply not talking? Is it 10 minutes? 1 hour? 10 questions? Is answering basic "what's your name"-type questions exempt? If you're talking and you get to a point where you decide you no longer want to talk, is shutting up enough? And if so, how are the cops to know without you saying it? Without reading the decision, I wonder if the outcome is as much a practical consideration as a legal one. The police, according to the Fifth Amendment" are not allowed to make you incriminate yourself through questioning. Their job is to gather evidence that you committed a crime and that evidence should be all they need to prosecute you.

We sure hope so. CLICKY

I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights. If they are Republican dirtbags, then they have rights.

LOL CLICKY

You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. Nice hijack!

"Although the majority clearly intended to use this case to make broad new declarations about Miranda rights, the specific facts case gave them the opportunity to do so. " Nobody is arguing whether the guy is a scumbag or not. That isn't what the case is about. The problem is that the court has turned Miranda upside down by this overly broad ruling. The balance has now been tilted in favor of the police, which is NOT a good thing. They will abuse it. The article you cite did point out that many police departments already take the extra trouble to make sure the defendants really know they are waiving their right to remain silent. But this overly broad ruling will give abusive interrogators just what they need in order to trample the fifth amendment rights of detainees.

Yes. When you read the background, you'll see that this case is about police power and the Fifth Amendment. As Justice Sotamayor pointed out in her dissent: "suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so" The police WILL abuse this loophole from now on.

If there was no real controversy, then most, if not all, of the 13 Federal judges who weighed in on this case would have ruled the same way. As it is, 6 Federal judges held for the prosecution (1 trial judge + the 5 majority SCOTUS justices) and 7 Federal judges held for the defendant (3 Court of Appeals judges + the 4 dissenting SCOTUS justices). Now, I'm not saying the 5 SCOTUS justices are not the last word in this case (they are, of course); I'm simply pointing out that a virtual statistical dead heat among 13 highly-trained Federal judges means that there most certainly is a very arguable controversy. Put another way, any layperson who thinks that, intellectually, this case is a slam-dunk, would be way over-simplifying the issues. I couldn't agree with you more. What we really need is a lot more liberal judges throughout our system

5-4 of course CLICKY

Which is exactly what the Arizona "papers please" law does. There are many Mexican American citizens who want to preserve their culture and speak Spanish and wave Mexican flags and celebrate Mexican holidays on occasion. They should have every right to do so.

Today in the Toronto Star: "Cathal Kelly Staff Reporter A Utah woman is suing the search engine Google, claiming its maps function gave her walking directions that led her onto a major highway, where she was struck by a car. The lawsuit seeks more than $100,000 in damages. Lauren Rosenberg sought directions between two addresses in Utah about 3 kilometres apart. The top result suggested that Rosenberg follow a busy rural highway for several hundred metres. The highway does not have sidewalks. One stretch is blocked by a noise barrier that pushes pedestrians closer to the roadside. After walking on to the highway, Rosenberg was struck by a car. The driver, Patrick Harwood, is also named in the suit. Google has pointed out that the directions Rosenberg sought come with a warning of caution for pedestrians. Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning. Others have pointed out that Rosenberg might have been best served by her own eyes after she reached a T-junction and found herself confronted with a patently unsafe walk" CLICKY

When's the last time the Academies released a report stating that an issue has been settled and no more funding/research is needed?

Perfect!