Joanne98
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 05:24 PM
Original message |
| The REAL reason Republicans complain about Miranda rights! |
|
They don't want to take them away from terrorists! They want to take then away from American citizens!
THEY HAVE BITCHED ABOUT MIRANDA FOREVER!
BEFORE 9/11!
Republicans need to understand that WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT GIVING UP OUR MIRANDA RIGHTS!
If they don't like it they can fucking MOVE!
|
| JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 05:26 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. I'm convinced there's a "real" reason for all of their bitching... |
|
Much like trotting out immigration, gay marriage, and abortion every election cycle.
|
| gravity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 05:27 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. They just want to act tough on terrorism |
|
Throw some red meat to the tea baggers
|
| Ruby the Liberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 05:31 PM
Response to Original message |
| 3. Ifins you mirandize 'em, you can'ts waterboard 'em. |
| rurallib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message |
| 4. They have bitched since the day Miranda was handed down. BTWwasn't Miranda |
|
a case arising out of Arizona? Didn't it have to do with not giving a Latino a rough go when he was arrested?
|
| Sebastian Doyle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda Rights a part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
|
| Stevenmarc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 05:58 PM
Response to Original message |
| 6. Because they think Carmen Miranda was a Mexican |
| dumpdabaggers
(275 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 05:59 PM
Response to Original message |
| 7. CONS have always disagreed with Mrianda. |
| FBI_Un_Sub
(610 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 06:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Miranda is a step towards equalizing arrestees in the police station. Gives poor folks the same choices as rich folks. And the rightees don't want that.
|
| provis99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-05-10 06:07 PM
Response to Original message |
| 9. if Republicans don't like it, they can waive their own Miranda rights. |
|
Everytime one of these Republican crooks get caught, you can bet they hide behind the Miranda rights they complain about so bitterly.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Mon May 20th 2013, 01:31 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
Replies to this thread
-
I'm convinced there's a "real" reason for all of their bitching...
-
Yep