3 ms·

Unlike you, I am not a laywer, so take this for what it's worth: I agree with most of what you say, but I do think the following statement is a bit unfair: >

Unlike you, I am not a laywer, so take this for what it's worth: I agree with most of what you say, but I do think the following statement is a bit unfair: > So it does make sense to talk about invoking it, since the same people who have explained this right have said, as part of that explanation, that you are required to do it. Unless I'm mistaken, you're referring to two separate SCOTUS decisions that are separated by several decades (the latter decision is very recent). I don't think it's right to treat the Supreme Court as a singular, monolithic entity even within a given session (let alone separated by many years and with different chief justices, etc.) Our public understanding of the supposed 'right to remain silent' developed after the Warren court decision, and while it's true that the Roberts court clarified (or imposed) the requirement that this be explicit, AFAICT it's not the only way to interpret the Warren ruling. Again, I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I don't think it's unfair to criticize the most recent SCOTUS ruling for appearing to[0] reverse or mitigate our understanding of the earlier SCOTUS ruling. [0] I say 'appearing to' because it's easily arguable that this is a clarification, not a reversal, which AFAICT is the whole controversy to begin with

DannyBee 12y ago
"Again, I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I don't think it's unfair to criticize the most recent SCOTUS ruling for appearing to[0] reverse or mitigate our understanding of the earlier SCOTUS ruling." It's certainly fair to criticize, but honestly, this is the problem with unenumerated rights in general (like "The right to privacy" and others), and judicially made rules like the exclusionary rule - they tend to erode or change over time, even after people come to rely on them. I'd much prefer to see both in the constitution itself. :)
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  The contemporaneous objection to the proposed Bill of Rights was that future generations would come to believe that only those rights enumerated in the Bill are protected by the Constitution. It seems to me that that fear has basically come true. Adding a few more amendments won't fix that; in fact they would reinforce the problem.

DannyBee 12y ago

"Again, I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I don't think it's unfair to criticize the most recent SCOTUS ruling for appearing to[0] reverse or mitigate our understanding of the earlier SCOTUS ruling." It's certainly fair to criticize, but honestly, this is the problem with unenumerated rights in general (like "The right to privacy" and others), and judicially made rules like the exclusionary rule - they tend to erode or change over time, even after people come to rely on them. I'd much prefer to see both in the constitution itself. :)

snowwrestler 12y ago
The contemporaneous objection to the proposed Bill of Rights was that future generations would come to believe that only those rights enumerated in the Bill are protected by the Constitution. It seems to me that that fear has basically come true. Adding a few more amendments won't fix that; in fact they would reinforce the problem.