HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » While Johnny-come-lately ...

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 05:12 PM

While Johnny-come-lately civil libertarians were whining, SCOTUS just gutted an amendment

Leaving aside the provenance of data that has not been under 4th Amendment protection since 1979, this is awful: SCOTUS has just ruled that voluntary silence can be introduced as evidence against a defendant. While the government still cannot compel testimony against one's self, this is a shocking reduction of the rights protected by the 5th Amendment, which had previously been interpreted to say silence cannot be used against a defendant.

19 replies, 1306 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply While Johnny-come-lately civil libertarians were whining, SCOTUS just gutted an amendment (Original post)
Recursion Jun 2013 OP
RC Jun 2013 #1
Eddie Haskell Jun 2013 #2
enlightenment Jun 2013 #3
Eddie Haskell Jun 2013 #15
enlightenment Jun 2013 #16
Eddie Haskell Jun 2013 #19
Recursion Jun 2013 #4
wandy Jun 2013 #5
Recursion Jun 2013 #6
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #7
Recursion Jun 2013 #8
CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #9
Recursion Jun 2013 #10
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #11
Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #12
redqueen Jun 2013 #13
sarisataka Jun 2013 #14
TheKentuckian Jun 2013 #17
liberal_at_heart Jun 2013 #18

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 05:24 PM

1. Another little step towards total control.

 

If they want you gone, anything you could, might, would did do, or not do, is against the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 05:26 PM

2. Link please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to enlightenment (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:02 PM

15. So, exactly what do you have to say and how do you prove you said it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to enlightenment (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:48 PM

19. Thanks, I will

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eddie Haskell (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 05:28 PM

4. ^^ That

Appalling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 05:34 PM

5. Probably earlier than 1979. Glad you pointed that out. Wish more people understood. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 05:36 PM

6. Well, it was ambiguous until 1979

Smith v. Maryland. codified what had been the majority courts' opinions until then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 05:49 PM

7. Here's what I think will really help:

Get the emo-left all whipped up over pesuedo-scandals so that, at best, they stay away from voting booths in 2014. That way, the Senate can turn just a wee bit red - enough so that, should there be a SCOTUS vacancy, we can all be assured that it won't be filled by some dastardly commie likely to disagree with rulings such as this.

Should we be faced with the current Court roster in 2016, ratchet up the outrage and push the remaining sreaming memies (sic) over to Paultopia. Eventually, we'll get the court we deserve.

Maybe someone can suggest an alternative, but, for now, this one's off to a fantastic start!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:11 PM

8. Stage 1 is certainly working (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:14 PM

9. Decision was a 5-4 party line split.

But it doesn't matter whether you elect a Dem or a GOP President, some say.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:14 PM

10. Right, the two parties are the same



Sometimes I want to throttle people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:17 PM

11. You mourn the dead, while mocking those fighting for the living

 

FYI: That 79 verdict was about 1 man, and meta-data, not spying on everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:29 PM

12. At least all of this bullshit is coming out in time for us to change it, before the entire thing is

 

lost...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:32 PM

13. Sigh.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:34 PM

14. New miranda...

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do not say may be used in a court..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:41 AM

17. Shitty snark aside, thank you. This is yet another complete travesty and brick in the

police state wall.

It is coming from every direction, feeding off each other and putting the citizen under control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:32 AM

18. Both our 4th and 5th Amendment rights are under attack. One is not more important than the

other. We must protect all of our rights when they are under attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread