SC: Your silince can and will be used agsint you.

[CatoMinor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-v-texas-ruling-explained/66309/

[7,052,770]

That's blatantly illogical.  You have the right or you don't.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's not great, but it's not the worst decision either.  The main problem with it is that it sets up a regime in which the police have an incentive to hold off arresting a suspect so as to avoid the Miranda protections.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The US Surpreme Court, a disgrace to Law since 1857

[CatoMinor]

The US Surpreme Court, a disgrace to Law since 1857

There have been a few gems, but then again they were mostly overturning past crap precedent. 

[DemPGH]

I don't know the names of the cases off hand, but they have handed down 5-4 classics that have given police really astonishing amounts of power. This is really deplorable - I mean do rights apply or not? Since when does a right NOT apply unless you invoke it?!?! I mean, that's how I basically understand it, and that's how I understand past rulings on Miranda. That's just heinous, really. So now you have to invoke Miranda and invoke the 5th if you have not been read Miranda?? Awful. Those five are an embarrassment before the concept of justice.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The US Surpreme Court, a disgrace to Law since 1857

[Person Man]

This more or less turns Miranda from a guarantee of rights to a loophole in your rights.

[muon2]

There seems to be some precedent for this already. If you are subpoenaed to testify before a legislative body you are not read a Miranda warning. If you want to avoid a question you must explicitly invoke your 5th Amendment right. If you fail to answer and are not invoking your right you could be held in contempt of that body and subject to criminal penalties.

[DemPGH]

There seems to be some precedent for this already. If you are subpoenaed to testify before a legislative body you are not read a Miranda warning. If you want to avoid a question you must explicitly invoke your 5th Amendment right. If you fail to answer and are not invoking your right you could be held in contempt of that body and subject to criminal penalties.

That's a good point, but I think the very nature of being under subpoena changes the equation rather substantially. One is aware of the trouble, so to speak, and is likely to have received council, or else better get council. The cops just running someone in is a bit different. And these really awful rulings, IMO, create complexity where there is to be none. This right applies only if this but not that, and so on. The five justices who always side with the cops are doing us a disservice. I so desperately wish Kennedy would retire. Scalia and Thomas will 100 and still be handing down these asinine rulings, but I really wish Kennedy would retire.

[politicallefty]

This line of cases is absurd. The notion that one must proactively invoke the right of silence against self-incrimination seems to violate that very principle. If one is silent from apprehension thereon, the right to silence should be presumed.

This only reaffirms my belief that Justice Alito is easily the worst Justice on the Supreme Court.