The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

On-Topic Justice and (our) humanity

palbert said:
Unfortunately, you may not. It is the sole duty of SCOTUS to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...

Amazing that Benvolio doesn't understand this.
 
rareboy said:
Amazing that Benvolio doesn't understand this.
Click to expand...
You are quite mistaken. Marbury does not say that the sole duty of the Supreme Court is to say what the law is. It has other duties. Nor does it say that the Supreme Court alone has that duty or power. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that the Court can change the Constitution or that it can make new laws or regulations binding on the states. On the contrary, see
Art.I Sec. 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States......"
It is beyond question the regulations set forth in the Miranda case were a violation of that section to the extent that they purported to bind the states.

Not every thing the Supreme Court says about the Constitution is true.
 
Benvolio said:
.... It is beyond question the regulations set forth in the Miranda case were a violation of that section to the extent that they purported to bind the states. ....
Click to expand...

In much the same way that the Court extended, in Heller, the 2nd Amendment to the States.

Not every thing the Supreme Court says about the Constitution is true.
Click to expand...

May be, but there are a stunning lack of Constituional Amendments to establish that. Nor, for that matter, that many Congressional overrides for non-Constitutional interpretations.
 
palbert said:
In much the same way that the Court extended, in Heller, the 2nd Amendment to the States.



May be, but there are a stunning lack of Constituional Amendments to establish that. Nor, for that matter, that many Congressional overrides for non-Constitutional interpretations.
Click to expand...

But there are a great many instances of the Sureme Court overruling prior decisions.
 
Benvolio said:
But there are a great many instances of the Sureme Court overruling prior decisions.
Click to expand...

Which is why each president tries to impress his ideaology on the Court through his nominees. And the opposition seeks otherwise.

As an aside, and speaking of SCOTUS changing course, would you revert to the interpretations of the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott? Fortunately times change and with them -- albeit belatedly -- the Court.
 
Yes, but if you will go back and read the Miranda decision you will recall that the actual holding was that the privilege against self incrimination was not limited to not "testifying" but applied during the investigative phase. BUT then it proceeded to set out a seties of regulations to be followed by STATE and Federal officers. The regulations, including the requirement that the suspect be advised, are not an interpretation or application of the Constitution, but sheer legislation.
Then there Roe v Wade.......
 
Benvolio said:
Yes, but if you will go back and read the Miranda decision you will recall that the actual holding was that the privilege against self incrimination was not limited to not "testifying" but applied during the investigative phase.
Click to expand...

And they were quite right to do so, since anything said to an officer of the court becomes testimony should they wish it.

Benvolio said:
BUT then it proceeded to set out a seties of regulations to be followed by STATE and Federal officers. The regulations, including the requirement that the suspect be advised, are not an interpretation or application of the Constitution, but sheer legislation.
Then there Roe v Wade.......
Click to expand...

I see your point. They could have ordered Congress to draft legislation which would cover the gap -- but perhaps they decided that since the instructions they composed were not likely to be adopted or the legislation Congress might come up with would be insufficient, they would shortcut the process and issue their own.

OTOH, the Constitution is not very clear about how much authority they do have when correcting situations, there's no way to gauge this.
 
TED is truly one of the most amazing online resources ever made. Thanks for posting this thread.
 
Kulindahr said:
And they were quite right to do so, since anything said to an officer of the court becomes testimony should they wish it.



I see your point. They could have ordered Congress to draft legislation which would cover the gap -- but perhaps they decided that since the instructions they composed were not likely to be adopted or the legislation Congress might come up with would be insufficient, they would shortcut the process and issue their own.

OTOH, the Constitution is not very clear about how much authority they do have when correcting situations, there's no way to gauge this.
Click to expand...

You and the Court assume a policy that the guilty should not confess. That is not the pupose of the provision. It prohibits REQUIRING the accused to testify against himself. Not because confessing is bad but because requiring it or forcing it is bad. Obviously confessing is a good thing because it brings more certainty to the criminal system, and frees resources for uncertain cases. The Warren court changes reflect an unconscious anti-establishment or libertarian bias, that sees it as a good thing when crminals get off on technicalities, when they beat the system. Only in that sense is it bad for criminals to confess.
I think the Constitution is clear: All legislative power is vested in Congress.
 
There are confessions and then there are confessions.

Uncoerced and freely given confessions are many of the things you say.

Coerced confessions are none of the things you say. Litigation over the freedom of the confession consume court time and resources.
If I call reading correctly a significant number of inmates have been released -- even from death row -- because of false confessions (frequently prompted by misrepresented "evidence," sometimes even by "evidence" from a compromised state lab).

If there is anywhere counsel is needed it is at the beginning of the interrogation.
 
palbert said:
There are confessions and then there are confessions.

Uncoerced and freely given confessions are many of the things you say.

Coerced confessions are none of the things you say. Litigation over the freedom of the confession consume court time and resources.
If I call reading correctly a significant number of inmates have been released -- even from death row -- because of false confessions (frequently prompted by misrepresented "evidence," sometimes even by "evidence" from a compromised state lab).

If there is anywhere counsel is needed it is at the beginning of the interrogation.
Click to expand...

Many prosecutions would be avoided if the accuseds were not discouraged from confessing, so Miranda probably causes more litigation than it solves. In any event the advice requirement is not an interpretation or application of the Constitution. It is a legislative decision which cannot legally be made by the court.
 
Benvolio said:
.... In any event the advice requirement is not an interpretation or application of the Constitution. It is a legislative decision which cannot legally be made by the court.
Click to expand...

Were that true -- and it may be -- a Constitutional Amendment is in order. I see none on the horizon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top