The Miranda rule and the so-called exclusionary rule (which throws out "tainted" evidence) are nowhere written in the constitution. They were invented by liberal judges. If you read the criminal procedure cases decided by the Warren Court and its successors, they read like someone trying to make a level playing field for criminals to escape punishment rather than a serious attempt to "interpet" the Constitution. Some kinds of police behavior, such as physical coercion or torture, clearly violates the guarantee against self-incrimination. In addition, "confessions" obtained by these tactics may well be false. But technical issues over probable cause and warrants do not raise the same problems. Typically there is no question of actual guilt, it is just a matter of whether the evidence can be used. As for the idea that freedom and liberty require these rules, we managed to exist as a free country for about 200 years without them. Indeed, most democratic countries do NOT use these types of rules. If the police act improperly, they can be sanctioned, but not by turning loose some vicious predator to kill again. Personally I find it odd that we punish innocent people for the actions of the police. Certainly the Constitution ,as written, does not require it. In many cases it is not even clear to the police that they acted improperly. How does that justify cutting loose a violent criminal? The other issue is how many times does a violent criminal have to be convicted before someone gets the idea that they should not be on the prowl again? If you read the accounts of these horrific crimes, frequently the perp has served several previous terms. That does not include all the crimes they committed but were not caught for. A very high percentage of crimes is committed by a small group of repeat offenders. That is the impetus for the three strikes laws, which can produce some harsh outcomes, but do address a very real problem.
Liberals can't see simple truths. You take a guy like that and you use him for a bad example so simple minded people will get the idea that you really, really, never ever will condone his behavior and they will be punished if they follow their insane urgings. flip the switches and fry the sons of ....."
It is a common theme of yours to say "As for the idea that freedom and liberty require these rules, we managed to exist as a free country for about 200 years without them. " If you recall we managed to exist as a "free" country nearly 100 years of slavery without a change of these rules. If you recall we managed to exist over a hundred years as a "free" country with denying women, certain minorities, and others the right to vote without a change of these rules. Times, values, and mores do change as we evolve as a society. In accordance with that evolutionary process, the laws will change and the constitution will be interpreted by judges who have evolved along with those changes. Even with all of our "evolution" even with a majority, we still stand 3 states short of ratification of the Equal Rights Ammendment (ERA). 35 States have already ratified it (nearly 75% of states). Here is the enitre text of the Equal Rights Ammendment. Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. Real dangerous changes, don't you think? We talk to Afghanastan and Iraq about treatment of women, yet in this country we still don't give women the full legal protection under a ratified constituion. And you want to revert us back to what particular "free" time frame in American history?
How about any criminals? Rapists, murders, gangbangers? Come on, you know who you are, step forward and be counted.
AAA, I KNOW you are a very bright guy. I admire your logic and your arguments. (although I think you missed on this particular argument...but that is not my point here). But sometimes your assumptions are a little quick. Earl Warren was a very interesting guy. Why don't you read up on him a little and then tell me why he was so reviled as a "liberal" judge. I think I remember mentioning in a previous post here on ET that when I was in college, I used to see "Impeach Earl Warren" signs right next to the "KKK Meeting Friday Night" signs in the deep south. Warren wasn't born in 1963. Take a look at what his politics were in the 1940's and 50's. William O Douglas....same thing. Maybe more extreme. Both ways. Why do these very right wing judges become "liberal" justices? Read up, my friend. For it is my belief that you too will become more liberal over the years. For every Reagan there is an AAA about to swing the other way. Mark my words. Get back to me in 25 years. Hapaboy in about 6 months. Pabst, maybe never, since he already is dizzy from the first swing. (JK..there's hope for him too....he's far too smart to stay so rigid). Peace, RS
The changes you mentioned regarding blacks and women were effected by contitutional amendment and legislation, not by judges issuing some edict that their policy preferences were somehow required by the Constitution. The concept of a "living " constitution is just an excuse to ignore what it actually says. When judges invent new rights, they diminish respect for the judiciary and infringe the democratic process. The ERA was an answer to a question that no one asked. In case you haven't noticed, women and men are different. In some cases it makes perfect sense to treat them differently in the law. The last thing we need is a blank slate constitutional amendment that power-crazed judges can "interpet" to suit their fancy.
I well remember the "impeach Earl Warren" posters. Obviously they were a key formative factor in my youth. You point out an interesting anomaly in that Earl Warren was a Republicn politician in California who became irrationally leftwing after appointment to the Supreme Court. This is the dreaded "growth" virus, that typically strikes Republican justices and long-term members of the Senate. It is called that because the liberal media celebrates their intellectual "growth", even as their former allies shake their heads in disbelief. Thnakfully the two obvious sufferers on this Court, Justices David "Lightweight" Souter and Sandra Day " Moonbeam" O'Connor, have so little in the way of intellectual firepower and personal charisma that they have been relatively harmless. But you must see that this conservative to liberal transformation is the exception, not the rule. Surely you recall the famous dictum that any man who is not a socialist at age 20 is heartless and any who remains a socialist at age 40 is mindless? Who said that anyway?
Judiciary (Redirected from Judicial branch) The judiciary is a branch of government, consisting of justices, judges and magistrates among other types of adjudicators. The primary function of the judiciary is to adjudicate legal disputes. The judiciary is also responsible for interpreting the law, but while in some legal systems this is a fundamental principle (e.g. common law jurisdictions), in others the primary responsibility for interpreting the law belongs not to the judiciary but to the legislature â traditionally, civil law and socialist law jurisdictions â although even in them, the judiciary inevitably must play some interpretive role, since interpretation of the law is an inseparable part of adjudicating legal disputes. This difference can be seen by comparing the United States and People's Republic of China â in the United States, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the law; in the PRC, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the National People's Congress.