The Federalist Society is a non-partisan conservative/ libertarian organization dedicated to freedom, federalism, and judicial restraint.
The Federalist Society seeks to educate the legal community through its programs and publications about how limited constitutional government based on the rule of law can have a positive effect on law and public policy.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
The SCOTUS Panel
Check the comments below for my comments (whatever they're worth).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
First of all, I have to give credit for the yummy cookies.
ReplyDeleteProf. Junker is going to talk about Miranda rights, and how they've been "eroded" over the years. Please.
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteI actually like that Miranda warnings are required, but think it should be done by statute and not by judicial fiat.
ReplyDeleteHe'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.
ReplyDeleteThere 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.
ReplyDeleteOnce 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.
ReplyDeleteProf. Lobardi is speaking...
ReplyDeleteI like his description of the Warren court as "intrusive" and "open to all commers."
ReplyDeleteWithout 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.
ReplyDelete"The job of courts is to let society make important decisions and then not get in their way." Exactly.
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that that's the future." I hope so.
ReplyDeleteHe'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.
ReplyDeleteNot if you belive, as some do, that the courts should tell us all what's right because they're smarter.
ReplyDeleteExactly. There's a reason we don't allow advisory opinions.
ReplyDeleteI 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...
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDelete