Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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.
Contributors
Readers Since May 31, 2006
Links
Conservative and Libertarian Blogs
Conservative/Libertarian Humor
Day By Day
Topics
- 1st Amendment (23)
- 2nd Amendment (7)
- ABA (3)
- Abortion (5)
- Academia (13)
- ACLU (5)
- ACS (3)
- Administrative Law (3)
- Affirmative Action (3)
- Big Government (9)
- Book Reviews (1)
- Campaign '06 (11)
- Campaign '08 (5)
- Campaign Finance (5)
- Civil Rights (23)
- Corruption (4)
- Crime (3)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Darfur (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Debates and Speakers (24)
- Diversity (4)
- Economics (2)
- Economy (9)
- Education (1)
- Ehren Watada (5)
- Eminent Domain (7)
- Energy Policy (2)
- Ethics (7)
- Europe (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Feminism (1)
- Global Warming (12)
- Health Care (2)
- History (3)
- Hollywood (2)
- Housekeeping (13)
- Immigration (5)
- Initiatives and Referendums (2)
- Iran (6)
- Iraq (37)
- Israel (6)
- Jim McDermott (1)
- Jimmy Carter (1)
- Journalist Privilege (3)
- Judges (27)
- Judicial Activism (5)
- Judicial Elections (2)
- Law and Economics (2)
- Law School Administration Watch (3)
- Libby (1)
- Libertarianism (2)
- Local Politics (11)
- Media Bias (13)
- Military Law (3)
- Minimum Wage (2)
- Networking and Socializing (8)
- North Korea (1)
- PATRIOT Act (1)
- Politics (11)
- Poverty (7)
- Quotes of the Day (4)
- Race (9)
- Separation of Powers (7)
- Sexual Orientation (1)
- Silliness (9)
- Supreme Court (24)
- Trans-Fat Bans (2)
- U.N. (1)
- Unions (1)
- US Attorney Firings (3)
- Veterans (5)
- War on Terror (50)
Other Federalist Society Chapters
- Federalist Society (National)
- American University
- Appalacian University
- Arizona State University
- Baylor
- Berkeley
- Boston College
- Brigham Young University
- Cal Western
- Capital University
- Case Western
- Catholic University
- Chapman University Federalists
- Columbia
- Duke
- Emory
- George Mason
- Georgia State University
- Harvard
- Indiana University
- Marquette University
- New York University
- Northwestern
- Notre Dame
- Seton Hall
- Stanford
- Syracuse
- Texas Tech
- University of Arkansas
- University of Baltimore
- University of Chicago
- University of Dayton
- University of Houston
- University of Kentucky
- University of Miami
- University of Michigan
- University of Minnesota
- University of Mississippi
- University of North Carolina
- University of Oklahoma
- University of Oregon
- University of Pennsylvania
- University of Utah
- University of Virginia
- Vanderbilt
- Washington & Lee
- Yale
The Federalist Society is a non-partisan group that does not take official policy stances, lobby for legislation or candidates, or otherwise engage directly in political activities. Instead, its mission is to provide fora through which conservative and libertarian ideas can get a fair hearing. This blog is such a forum. Further, this is not an official University of Washington website. Opinions expressed are the author's alone, and do not necessarily constitute official sanction or position taking by the Federalist Society, the University of Washington, or any other organization. Posts may be reproduced by permission of the author only.
18 comments:
First of all, I have to give credit for the yummy cookies.
Prof. Junker is going to talk about Miranda rights, and how they've been "eroded" over the years. Please.
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.
I actually like that Miranda warnings are required, but think it should be done by statute and not by judicial fiat.
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.
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.
Prof. Lobardi is speaking...
I like his description of the Warren court as "intrusive" and "open to all commers."
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.
"The job of courts is to let society make important decisions and then not get in their way." Exactly.
"It seems to me that that's the future." I hope so.
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.
Not if you belive, as some do, that the courts should tell us all what's right because they're smarter.
Exactly. There's a reason we don't allow advisory opinions.
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.
Post a Comment