4 ms·
> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, So did the ninth amendment, FWIW: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain r
by ajross 4y ago
> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist,
So did the ninth amendment, FWIW: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Appelate courts decide on what a "right" is. That's arguably their most important function. Huge, huge chunks of modern constitutional law are based on subjects not enumerated in the constitution. The constitution doesn't speak about miscegenation laws, or miranda rights, etc... Yet those are still "rights" that you'd be awfully horrified to have destroyed, right?
This argument doesn't really work, basically. The argument you're making is, if you really think about it, not what you actually want.
- alistairSH 4y agomiranda rights I have some bad news for you. SCOTUS blew that one up yesterday. <sad trombone>
- ajross 4y agoNo, you still have the right to remain silent. You still have the right to an attorney. They removed (rather, neutered) the notification requirement; the police aren't required to tell you your rights. That's bad, but not remotely as bad as legalizing forced interrogation without representation.
- alistairSH 4y agoExactly, there is no miranda right (miranda being the notification of your right to remain silent and obtain an attorney). And there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. So, you better hope your lawyer can have anything you say suppressed before trial.
- jaywalk 4y ago> there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. Explain this, please. You still have the right to remain silent, you still have the right to an attorney. The police still have to stop questioning you when you invoke these rights. Literally the only thing that changed was the notification requirement. That's it.
- alistairSH 4y agoHere's a pretty good summary... https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-rejects-promise-miranda-rights https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-reje... Basically, the Court removed any remedy against state actors who fail to uphold your right to remain silent. Prior to Vega, if the state ignored your right to remain silent, you could seek redress with the courts. Post Vega, that right to seek redress no longer exists. On paper we still have the right. But, we have to no way to hold the state accountable when it fails to uphold that right. Is a right really a right if the state can ignore it with impunity?
- ameister14 4y agothe state can't use the evidence against you in court, can it?
- jaywalk 4y agoNo, it can't. Literally the only thing that changed is that you can't sue a cop for not reading the Miranda warning to you. Your actual Miranda rights are unchanged, and cops still have to read the warning.
- alistairSH 4y agoA coerced confession was used during the trial in question.
- alistairSH 4y agoIt's up to you/your lawyer to ensure it isn't used. Relying on the judge to do so isn't a great plan.
- diordiderot 4y agoNow it can
- jaywalk 4y agoThe right you keep referring to is the right to be notified of your rights. You are blatantly incorrect in continually stating that there is any change at all in your right to remain silent, or remedies against state actors who violate it. You can still sue a cop who continues questioning you after you have invoked your right to remain silent. Literally nothing about that has changed. The one specific thing that has changed is that you can't sue a cop simply for failing to read you your rights. That does not impact your right to remain silent, or any remedies available in case of violation of it, in any way.