But specifically, they are not allowed to lie about your rights.
For now…
You have a Constitutionally-protected right against self-incrimination, i.e. an admission of guilt cannot be compelled from you. However, many of the other rights explicated in the Fifth Amendment have been materially gutted, so just the fact that it is specifically delineated in the Bill of Rights is no guarantee that conservative-minded courts will uphold this protection.
The reality that a lot of convictions come from entirely voluntary admissions of guilt (often not explicit confessions but just poorly thought out statements by a suspect), and far from making it more difficult, the ‘Miranda warning’ actually made it easier to establish that such an admission was not ostensibly coerced by a suspect in custody. (Admissions of criminal acts by people not in custody are admissible even though the ‘right to remain silent’ has not been explained.).
The ability of police to openly lie is more insidious than it may seem on the surface. You might believe that if you were questioned and just telling the truth that police will not trick you into admitting guilt for a crime that you did not commit but in fact that occurs with disturbing frequency. Police can lie about the law, about forensic and surveillance technology, about the statements and testimony of other witnesses, about the consequences of admitting or not admitting guilt, et cetera, and for someone not versed in either criminal law or interrogation procedure these lies can be quite confusing, particularly after hours of questioning. Police have coerced confessions by asserting that they have evidence and confessions that they do not really have and that if the suspect confesses now it is the only way to mitigate their circumstances, leading unaware people to falsely admit to guilt for a crime that they did not commit but which is now admissible in court.
This is why defense attorneys across the board recommend that if you are being questioned your communication with police should be limited to identifying yourself, asking “Am I in custody?”, and if so, requesting legal counsel before making a statement or answering questions. Legal representation during questioning is an absolute right that people are often afraid to invoke because they fear that it will make them look uncooperative or guilty when in fact the default assumption by investigators is essentially that everyone is guilty of something if you just ask the right questions.
Not explicitly lie, but they can certainly pressure and deceive suspects into believing that they do not have rights, and because most people are not at all conversant with their Constitutional protections they can effectively get suspects to waive their rights to no benefit. The ‘Miranda warning’ was one tiny attempt to assure that people actually understand their rights before they are questioned by police in custody, and removing that is a bellwether for further erosion of Constitutional protections.
Stranger
There’s always been a certain degree of inconsistency in how the Full Faith and Credit clause has been complied with.
So is it time for a serious discussion about packing the court?
Court-packing is a short-sighted and ultimately futile solution. Ultimately, federal judicial positions should have term limits so that appointments aren’t these decades-long biases without review. The polarization of the Supreme Court reflects that of current politics in general except that it will remain that way for a couple of decades to come.
Stranger
This says it better than I could …
… and – IMHO – goes hand in hand with Jefferson’s view that we should revisit the Constitution once every generation:
In the case of this thread, ISTM that the two go hand-in-hand.
Wish in one hand, shit in the other…
Interesting summary from the Los Angeles Times, reposted by Political Wire:
It’s also worth noting that 6 of the 9 justices are Catholic. More diversity is required.
I would like to see the Supreme Court constituted more like an appellate court. That is, a banque of justices who could be randomly drawn to sit for each term.
Let’s say there are 18 term-limited justices. At the beginning of each term, 9 are randomly drawn to sit for the session. No one would ever know which justice was going to hear and decide landmark cases, which I believe would have the effect of dialing back the partisanship across the board.
I’m always for diversity, but be careful what you wish for: U.S. Catholics tend to be pro-choice. Evangelicals are much more anti-abortion than Catholics are:
According to the poll released last week by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 64 percent of U.S. Catholics (and 40 percent of Catholic Republicans) agreed that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, almost identical to the 65 percent of all adult Americans who held that view. Only 25 percent of evangelical Protestants held this view, putting Catholics closer to those with no religious affiliation at all (87 percent of whom said abortion should be legal in most or all case) than to their fellow Christians.
Polls suggest a similar percentage of Muslim Americans are pro-choice. Of course, neither they nor nominees who are Jewish or unaffiliated, the groups most likely to be pro-choice, would ever get confirmation by the anti-abortion right-wingers in the Senate.
Personally, I’m hoping Mitch McConnell (a Baptist) keels over from a stroke tomorrow.
In my view, a couple of atheists wouldn’t go amiss if we’re trying to represent a cross-section of the country.
Color me Not Hopeful.
It’s a fair point, but there are more Protestant denominations than just Evangelical. (Is that even a denomination? Are they Baptists?)
As always, The Onion to the rescue! shows potential headlines that we can see in the near future.
“Evangelical” is a descriptor of outlook and/or general theology, not a denomination.
Friendly reminder:
Judges do not make laws.
I wonder how long until bombings and the like start … it’s easier to make groups now than it was in the 60s and eventually, there will be one that will rack up casualties …
Only people who don’t actually understand the common law system, or who want people to misunderstand it, say this.
Restricting individual rights in many states could fit into a Republican strategy for permanent minority rule:
I am wondering about these “bounty laws” that try to forbid women from leaving the state to seek abortions. Are there not a whole host of laws allowing free travel between states? This seems to be a cornerstone of the concept of a “United States”. There is also the constitutional Commerce Clause itself, which says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between states. Doesn’t that mean only Congress could forbid me travelling to another state to obtain a legal service in that state I cannot obtain in my state? So in theory, I suppose, Congress itself could enact a law forbidding interstate travel to obtain an abortion (and I wouldn’t put it past the Republicans to do just this if they regain control of Congress) but at the moment it seems those laws are entirely unconstitutional.
I have testified on many OWI cases in my career, and I had a couple interesting ones where the drinking age in our state was 21 but in neighboring Canada it was (at the time) 19. A 20-year-old goes to Canada, legally drinks a few, comes back over the border and is arrested for OWI. His BAC was over the legal limit, so the OWI charge was legit, but the prosecutor declined to charge him with minor-in-possession, which they typically did for underage drinkers. He said that since the drinking was legal where it occurred, that charge would not stand up in court. It seems to me a similar logic would have to apply with interstate travel to obtain a medical service that is legal in the state you are travelling to. I do not see how these bounty laws remain constitutional unless there is a law at the federal level forbidding interstate travel for a specific purpose (abortions in this case).
And if Congress does THAT…holy crap, what a shitstorm of a precedent.
Isn’t it a sad state of affairs, such that so many ostensibly benign folk are moved to wish death on others?
IMO, term limits is the biggest no-brainer in terms of Constitutional tweaks needed. Has any president had a greater impact on the court than Trump in his one term?