Supreme Court eases rules for Interrogation
So while the country and the mainstream media were busy on Tuesday spinning from all the White House and GOP talking points regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme court was quietly making news of it’s own.
From the Associated Press- “The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.” I am just gonna skip the eloquent part and tell you this is truly one of those WTF moments. I also find it fitting if not poetic that this happened the same day Pres. Obama announced his nominee to the Supreme Court.
On a 5 to 4 ruling the supreme court has decided that honoring a “suspect’s” rights to NOT be questioned and or interrogated without his attorney present AFTER he or she has requested one, well… it’s just an antiquated and inept legal statute. The ruling overturned in order to make this possible was the 1986 Michigan vs. Jackson ruling where the Supreme court had found THEN, that police could not initiate questioning of a defendant if he or she had asked for one and the attorney was not present. Yes, that was overturned.
In explaining the overturn of the statute, Justice Scalia wrote, “It would be completely unjustified to presume that a defendent’s consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because he had been previously appointed a lawyer.” Right; because police officers can be trusted to just watch themselves and not overstep their authority, right. Unjustified to presume? that police officers are capable and have been known to coerce defendants? to manipulate testimony? But the contradictions keep getting better, Justice Scalia goes on to say, “the decision will have minimal effects on criminal defendants because of the protections the court has provided in other decisions” I am so sick and tired of the contradiction of such statements, when it comes to political or legal decisions, if the vote, veto or ruling will have such “minimal” effects, then why issue it?!! if it is so insignificant to keep, than why remove it?!!
But that’s not the best part, not at all. Why are you asking am I posting this on a political blog? “The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.” The request to overturn the original ruling that had been standing since 1986, came from the Obama administration.
There are so many layers to this I don’t even know where to begin. Number one, why is the Obama administration so interested in REMOVING yet more rights of defendants? Are we keeping score of just how many rights we are losing, how many we have lost and will continue to lose if we don’t wake up!! If we don’t open our eyes, step back and see the larger puzzle coming together in front of us?
Number two and I must address this, when, W H E N are people who are supposed to be putting pressure on our leaders and enforcing the president’s duty to uphold the constitution going to realize Obama, Bush, Pelosi, Cheney, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME ENTITY!!! This idea that somehow we can let our guard down and “trust” that Obama will not seek to expand powers or overstep boundaries or will defend civil rights because he has a D in front of his name has to stop!! These is beyond foolish. We teach our children not to trust strangers and we have adults trusting politicians? Are you serious? I read these statements and I cannot believe how far we have regressed as a people.
How long will it be? How much longer will this ride last? of America just continuing to sleep at the wheel.
We have a new nominee now. The Supreme Court will evolve yet once more… and yet, us, you and I are still asleep “hoping” “expecting” our leaders do the right thing. Wake up America. Wake up!!
-Desiree
