A "progressive" work acquaintance told me that in his circles, they're calling Justice Thomas the GOP "house-n-word".
Oh, the lefties have come out hard using the House N phrase the past week. They're finally saying what they've been thinking all along out loud.
Being called a racist is not half as bad as being called a Dem or libtard! You were being kind calling them "progressives."
Ninth just got a massively bitter set of pills to swallow. Consistently, they'll make lame excuses why Thomas's opinion is flawed (I just finished reading it, he's been waiting to write this for YEARS, you can tell) and then SCOTUS will thump them on the head in the spring session.
They will hold on to it until the bitter end... ya know, because they know best and we are all ignorant simps...
It would be terrific if WA's mag ban was TRO'd within a month of its enactment. Now the 9th Circuit has a history of ignoring USSC rulings, such as employee arbitration agreements. They'll likely try to avoid this one too and it will go up and down.
Dis-bar every one of them!
*strikedown of Remain In Mexico taps you on shoulder*
Actually, the court ruled correctly, like it or not, they did their jobs!
I have found that to be true with just about* everyone of the decisions they have made, and yes, I am including "those" decisions they made early on
The Miranda Rights ruling confuses me, especially as they were the ones who codified it all those years ago!I have found that to be true with just about* everyone of the decisions they have made, and yes, I am including "those" decisions they made early on
* I stuck "Just about" in there because I haven't looked at every one of them
They didnt codify it. Thats not their job. Their job is to rule on constitutionally of laws not to make law from the bench.The Miranda Rights ruling confuses me, especially as they were the ones who codified it all those years ago!
I understand what they were trying to do, but I think they could have done it with out stripping it of it's protections!
I did not read the ruling but you sound 100% right on! The idea that a president could bind future presidents with executive orders is absurd. Despite being pro choice, I agree with your observation that the court has been doing its job. When the libs finally realize that the law abiding person next to them with a gun is not a threat but possibly their savior, we will be on the way to becoming a great nation again.
Before I attempt to respond, would you kindly explain or elaborate on what you mean by "stripping it of its protections"?The Miranda Rights ruling confuses me, especially as they were the ones who codified it all those years ago!
I understand what they were trying to do, but I think they could have done it with out stripping it of it's protections!
By not requiring an LEO to specifically state your right, and then using anything you say against you is the issue! Your were supposed to be given your right at every arrest, now, failing to do so is not punishable to the officers!
As i read it the officer can't be sued, but by not providing the Maranda Waning any info they get after that isn't admissible
I am still having some difficulty because law enforcement is obligated to inform you of your right to remain silent before any questioning if you are in custody, which would include any arrest. When you say punishable to the officers, it is not clear to me what you mean. The only punishment, if it could be called that, is that they lose whatever evidence they obtain by there unconstitutional questioning. But that is a two edged sword. Society also loses that evidence. That is why, as law abiding citizens, we must demand that law enforcement not violate the rights of those they encounter, even the dirt bags. Thankfully, the vast majority of law enforcement are on the same page.
