HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » suffragette » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Seattle, WA
Member since: Mon Dec 13, 2004, 01:55 AM
Number of posts: 8,539

Journal Archives

Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stewart dissented


BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., post, p. 746, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 748, filed dissenting opinions, in which BRENNAN, J., joined. POWELL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

I think Thurgood Marshall would be appalled, though sadly not surprised, to see where this has led and to see people on a liberal forum defending this.

There's such an ugliness at the core of this, the authoritarianism, the chilling of speech,

The denial of any right to privacy, the profiteering.

I doubt any of our tax dollars were returned after Trailblazer was shut down.

And now we are to trust that private contractors such as Booz Allen are suddenly conducting such a project competently and ethically? And divert ever more funding from social programs that actually enhance all of our safety to this?

Excellent post, Junkdrawer.

This helps explain Clapper's distinction in backtracking an earlier statement


Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Thursday that he stood by what he told Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in March when he said that the National Security Agency does not “wittingly” collect data on millions of Americans.
“What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails. I stand by that,” Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.
On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden asked Clapper: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded: “No, sir.” When Wyden followed up by asking, “It does not?” Clapper said: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly.” Clapper did not specify at the time that he was referring to e-mail.
Clapper’s lie — that he took Wyden’s “collected any type of data at all” to mean “voyeuristically pore through emails” — is all the worse for how bad a non-sequitur it is. Caught in a lie, the head of our Intelligence Community responded with word salad.

Maybe he was thinking of that incident when he added the "voyeuristically" which was not part of his original testimony.

Thurgood Marshall wrote a strong dissent in the Quarles case

It's worth keeping in mind that the Quarles case was a conservative decision and the liberals on the court dissented.
Justice Marshall specifically pointed to the decision as "limiting the protections of the Fifth Amendment ."

Some excerpts from Justice Marshall's dissent:


Though unfortunate, the difficulty of administering the "public safety" exception is not the most profound flaw in the majority's decision. The majority has lost sight of the fact that Miranda v. Arizona and our earlier custodial interrogation cases all implemented a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The rules established in these cases were designed to protect criminal defendants against prosecutions based on coerced self-incriminating statements. The majority today turns its back on these constitutional considerations,
Page 467 U. S. 681
and invites the government to prosecute through the use of what necessarily are coerced statements.
The majority's error stems from a serious misunderstanding of Miranda v. Arizona and of the Fifth Amendment upon which that decision was based. The majority implies that Miranda consisted of no more than a judicial balancing act in which the benefits of "enlarged protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege" were weighed against "the cost to society in terms of fewer convictions of guilty suspects." Ante at 467 U. S. 656-657. Supposedly because the scales tipped in favor of the privilege against self-incrimination, the Miranda Court erected a prophylactic barrier around statements made during custodial interrogations. The majority now proposes to return to the scales of social utility to calculate whether Miranda's prophylactic rule remains cost-effective when threats to the public's safety are added to the balance. The results of the majority's "test" are announced with pseudoscientific precision:
"We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination."
Ante at 467 U. S. 657.
The majority misreads Miranda. Though the Miranda dissent prophesized dire consequences, see 384 U.S. at 384 U. S. 504, 384 U. S. 516-517 (Harlan, J., dissenting), the Miranda Court refused to allow such concerns to weaken the protections of the Constitution:
"A recurrent argument made in these cases is that society's need for interrogation outweighs the privilege. This argument is not unfamiliar to this Court. The whole thrust of our foregoing discussion demonstrates that the Constitution has prescribed the rights of the individual when confronted with the power of government
Page 467 U. S. 682
when it provided in the Fifth Amendment that an individual cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. That right cannot be abridged."


The Fifth Amendment prohibits compelled self-incrimination. As the Court has explained on numerous occasions, this prohibition is the mainstay of our adversarial system of criminal justice. Not only does it protect us against the inherent unreliability of compelled testimony, but it also ensures that criminal investigations will be conducted with integrity, and that the judiciary will avoid the taint of official lawlessness. See Murphy
Page 467 U. S. 688
v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U. S. 52, 378 U. S. 55 (1964). The policies underlying the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination are not diminished simply because testimony is compelled to protect the public's safety. The majority should not be permitted to elude the Amendment's absolute prohibition simply by calculating special costs that arise when the public's safety is at issue. Indeed, were constitutional adjudication always conducted in such an ad hoc manner, the Bill of Rights would be a most unreliable protector of individual liberties.

UMASS-Dartmouth students evacuated from campus as officials investigate the dorm room of Dzhokhar

From the Guardian:

UMASS-Dartmouth students were evacuated from campus on Friday, April 19, 2013 as local and state officials investigate the dorm room of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, one of the two suspects wanted for the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday. UMASS-Dartmouth students were evacuated from campus as local and state officials investigate the dorm room of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, one of the two suspects wanted for the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday.

Yes, it has become blatant

Here in Washington state, we even had two "Democrats" side with the Republicans to stage a coup to give the Republicans control of the state Senate - that's how blatant they've become here.

I keep going back to Obama's Toronto G20 speech. He laid it out there and now is more openly acting on it. And for those who say he doesn't mean it, his statements then show he does and in no uncertain terms:


In 2010, Obama said “I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it.”

He said it during a G20 press conference in response to a question about deficit reduction.

He said it in the context of tying Social Security to the deficit (erroneous as that is) and of describing the fiscal commission and referring to other actions, including ACA, that he acted upon.

He said it after describing what he calls structural issues and changes (austerity measures) by other G20 countries and stating his “violent agreement” with these. (And note that whether it’s called pension cuts or chained CPI, cuts to social retirement plans are a key part of austerity measures.)

And he said it in terms of "not rushing to the exits too quickly and all at the same time" in terms of austerity measures in other countries.

He also said "And one of the interesting things that's happened over the last 18 months as President is for some reason people keep on being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do."

I was hoping against hope in the last election that other Democrats, including the ones I helped elect from Washington State, Murray, Cantwell and McDermott, might have shifted his view and his campaign rhetoric seemed to indicate that.
But he seems more bound to his promises on the global stage than to the ones he makes to us.

No surprise here, not anymore, just dismay.

There's a river of ice flowing down the hill here in Seattle

from the hail storm.

EXceptionally well researched and compiled article

Thank you for posting this!

I do agree with other posters about Obama not trembling.

He has continually (except during campaign times) indicated that he agrees with global austerity measures, going so far as to note he is in "violent agreement" that this is the direction to go :http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-g-20-press-conference-toronto-canada

And part of that has been purposefully conflating Social Security with the deficit and introducing decisions at key points (such as the Fiscal Commission) which are aimed at cutting Social Security, just as austerity measures have been doing this globally.

He's made an agreement and keeps taking actions to fulfill it - the problem is that the agreement is not with citizens here, but with financiers and the politicians who are in the club with them.

Barclays announces £38.5m bonuses on budget day

Source: The Guardian

Barclays has been accused of trying to "bury bad news" by announcing it has given its top nine bankers bonuses worth £38.5m while the City is distracted by the budget.

The bank, which promised it was "changing" in the wake of the Libor rate-rigging scandal, awarded the head of its investment banking division, Rich Ricci, £17.5m worth of shares. He immediately cashed in all of the shares.

Barclays chief executive Antony Jenkins was awarded 1.8m shares worth £5.3m. He cashed in half of the shares.

Last month Barclays said Jenkins and Ricci would not be collecting a bonus this year after the bank was fined £290m over the Libor rate-rigging scandal.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/20/barclays-bonuses-budget-day

Continuing their pattern of our austerity and their prosperity.

And with a name right out of Dickens - Rich Ricci.

Yes, that's it

Grigg was also formerly a partner and managing director at Goldman Sachs.

And their actions now are not so different from their actions then:
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »