Thursday, December 01, 2005

The SCOTUS Panel

Check the comments below for my comments (whatever they're worth).

26 comments:

Orrin Johnson said...

First of all, I have to give credit for the yummy cookies.

Orrin Johnson said...

Prof. Junker is going to talk about Miranda rights, and how they've been "eroded" over the years. Please.

Orrin Johnson said...

In giving the background, he's talking about how the court was "seeking a way" to get the police to behave. He said that the "police can do whatever they want unless the Constitution tells them otherwise," and that legislatures are unable to set down rules for the police. I just don't think that's true.

Orrin Johnson said...

The police could not disregard a statute that required them to act in a certain way WRT their job, nor could they ignore a law that didn't allow, say, an interrogation to last more than an hour.

Orrin Johnson said...

I actually like that Miranda warnings are required, but think it should be done by statute and not by judicial fiat.

Orrin Johnson said...

He's complaining because they only apply when one is "in custody." I don't by that a cop should have to read you your rights during a traffic stop.

Orrin Johnson said...

There is an interesting complaint that suspects don't get lawyers IMMEDIATELY. I'm sorry, but there are some realities of police work that don't comport so well with law school idyllic theory. It's true that you have to protect the guilty, but if the rules are so strict that the innocent aren't protected either, than the system is just as bankrupt.

Orrin Johnson said...

Once a person has been advised of their rights, I don't have any problem with police continually attempting to get people to waive them. As citizens, we have an obligation to exercise our own rights, not expect someone else to exercise them for us.

Orrin Johnson said...

Prof. Lobardi is speaking...

PubliusRex said...

You're a hippy.

Orrin Johnson said...

I like his description of the Warren court as "intrusive" and "open to all commers."

Orrin Johnson said...

Without saying it, he's talking about the re-birth of judicial restraint, describing it as a separate thing than "liberal" v. "conservative." I love it.

PubliusRex said...

...and not be resolved by *legal arguments*

Orrin Johnson said...

"The job of courts is to let society make important decisions and then not get in their way." Exactly.

Orrin Johnson said...

"It seems to me that that's the future." I hope so.

Orrin Johnson said...

He's urging people to learn to make the argument through the political process instead of trying to force things through the courts. He's exactly right.

PubliusRex said...

If there is no standing there are no merits of the case...because there is not "case" without standing.

Orrin Johnson said...

Not if you belive, as some do, that the courts should tell us all what's right because they're smarter.

PubliusRex said...

Facial challenge allows the court to address fact patterns that have not arisen yet as cases.

PubliusRex said...

If I wanted the supreme court members to make policy, I'd vote for them in the ballot booth.

Orrin Johnson said...

Exactly. There's a reason we don't allow advisory opinions.

Orrin Johnson said...

I want to ask Prof. Junker if he agrees that Miranda rights would be better protected if the legislature passed them (as they should). Hope I have time...

PubliusRex said...

Why are judges shifting towards the process and restraint point of view. It's obviously not a view held dear at places like Harvard and Yale, where these judges grow up?

PubliusRex said...

It's only always political because the left has made the courts into policy bodies.

PubliusRex said...

Would it be so bad if judges left their political beliefs at the courtroom door?

In a climate of more judicial restraint, that could be alot more possible.

Orrin Johnson said...

I asked him afterwards. He thinks that legislatures are unwilling to try, and/or the police lobby is too powerful. I disagree. I think people would overwhelmingly support codification of the Miranda warnings, but would NOT vote to close some of the "loopholes" complained about above. And I think that's the fear of giving it back to the political process.