Few things are more cut and dried than American citizens’ right against self incrimination. …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself… At least that used to be correct. In most 5-4 decisions, the Supreme Court is split between the fascist five Injustices of SCROTUS and the four Justices of SCOTUS. Not only did SCROTUS deny the Constitution in this case, but also, four critical cases remain on this year’s calendar.
…The court ruled that a suspect’s failure to answer a police officer’s questions before an arrest may be used against the suspect at trial.
The Supreme Court has long said the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination applies after arrest and at trial. But it had never decided, in the words of a 1980 decision, “whether or under what circumstances pre-arrest silence” in the face of questioning by law enforcement personnel is entitled to protection…
…Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said allowing “a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s constitutionally protected silence would put that defendant in an impossible predicament.” Mr. Salinas’s choice, Justice Breyer wrote, was “between incrimination through speech and incrimination through silence.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
The four Justices of SCOTUS were absolutely correct. The right against self incrimination is meaningless, if its invocation before arrest can be used in court to imply guilt. But the Fascist Five Injustices goose-stepped against the Constitution to help make this nation a Republican police state. As for what’s next, Chris Hayes covered the remaining four decisions in two segments. In the first, Chris and his panel discussed what’s at stake in the decisions.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I strongly fear that Chris may be correct in his hypothesis that SCROTUS may use gay rights to mask the demise of voting rights and affirmative action. The wrong decision in any of these cases will be tragic, because all are key to America’s freedom. However, the worst decision they could would be to allow their Republican cronies to steal elections by denying minority Americans the right to vote. In Chris’s second segment, he and his panel discussed that.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Chris is correct that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is at stake, because Republicans have already made it clear that their intent is to use the law to disentrance blacks and Latinos, in addition to seniors, students, labor and poor people. If destroying the Voting Rights Act is the decision, in combination with Citizens United, the Supreme Court will have demonstrated that it is illegitimate.
No Republican may be allowed to infest the White House before the Injustices od SCROTUS have been replaced with Justices.
15 Responses to “Another Unconstitutional Decision by SCROTUS: What Next?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It really is a shame (or should I say travesty of justice?) that they are allowed to serve for life with no oversight.
I think a single ten od fifteen year term would be a sufficient, but a Justice may be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanor like the President may be,
The Supreme Court — American dictators for life!
Bingo, Jerry.
The take home lesson:
Never – and I mean NEVER – talk to the police … unless your lawyer is present.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
(Disentrance? Per chance, did you mean disenfranchise? Because if not, I'm confused.)
I agree – it's too risky now. But what if that will be held against you in court? We're gonna need to see how this plays out.
I litened to that while writing yesterday and it's well worth the time, but what Lisa said also applies.
SCROTUS, thy name is obfuscation!
"…The court ruled that a suspect’s failure to answer a police officer’s questions before an arrest may be used against the suspect at trial."
As is usual for me, I read the 5th amendment and some history around it in Wikipedia:
In this passage, the 'could' vs 'would' is not lost on me. So SCROTUS is now saying 'would'.
Just an aside, it is interesting to note, that the 5th amendment has its origins in the prosecutions of English Puritans who brought it with them when they left England. Now tell me that the US was intended, by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation.
Now in the next 2 weeks, four more decisions will be handed down. Depending on their level of activism, and the importance to the conservative movement, they will release the decisions in such an order as to create a smoke screen for the most egregious.
Personally, were I an American, I would hope that DOMA gets overturned, but it really ticks me off that Boehner has spent how much, up to $5 million of public funds to defend DOMA.
Excellent info, Lynn, and as important as I consider overturning DOMA, maintqaining the Voting Rights Act is moreso. Overturning that makes it more likely that SCROTUS will come to have nine fascict Injustices.
I agree – to be appointed for life is just asking for trouble! (New laptop and odd keyboard TC, hope I have typed this correctly!).
You did.
Help TC! (Please see slightly altered email a/d). How do I get the previous page on Care2 back?! Love PP as I do this is mysterious and confusing and I don't like Windows 8 on my new cheap laptop! Windows XP was much easier! (Argh!)
Pat, I cannot support Windows 8, because my total experience with it ids 5 minutes, just long enough to know I hate it.
I was shocked when I heard this. They are basically negating a portion of the constitution.
Exactly, Patty.