Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Cue the crickets...

Of what one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence:
"Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Justice Scalia said.
Here's the opinion in Montejo v. Louisiana.


Jim Craig said...

Obviously, Justice Scalia doesn't watch Law and Order.

Matt Eichelberger said...

The problem is truly becoming one of intellectual honesty with Scalia.

He has in the past questioned whether or not Miranda should be overruled on the basis that Americans have heard its warnings many times before in popular culture, thereby obviating the need for them to be read to a suspect once again. Essentially, his idea is that Americans watch so many cop dramas that we should all know Miranda by rote by now.

Then he rests his majority opinion in Montejo on the existence of Miranda warnings.

It's not fun to say this, but Justice Scalia has spent his time on the bench carving to pieces constitutional provisions that protect the rights of the accused. And if that's not judicial activism of the highest order, nothing is.

Jim Craig said...

The most blatant hypocrisy by Justice Scalia was the gun control case, where he read the "well-organized militia" phrase out of the Second Amendment. So much for the Founders' original intent.

And speaking of "original intent" and being governed by the exact language of the Constitution, let's look at the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

What is hard to understand about this? Give people "accused" of crime "the Assistance of Counsel." What in the Constitution lets the State take that "Assistance" away because someone is in jail? Or because they're being examined by a shrink? Or because we THINK they did some heinous act? Or even, because they DID do some heinous act?

When the Scalias and Thomases limit the right to counsel, which is an ABSOLUTE right in the Constitution, then they should just shut up when it comes to complaining about the right to privacy and other alleged "inventions" of liberal judges.