What should Conservative Supreme Court do?

Read what I said... NO, I have no problem with police "telling a suspect their (sic) rights". What I see as a danger to our entire society is a situation where liberal judges subvert and sabotage the lawful efforts of police and prosecutors to prosecute suspects who are duly charged with crimes.

"Miranda" may have been meant simply to inform suspects of their rights -- but it morphed into a LOT more, and it has been used as a tool -- especially by activist legal groups like the ACLU -- to free those on technicalities who were later shown clearly to have committed crimes.

 

If Miranda isn't required, there's no Miranda. You can require your children/employees, whatever, follow some sort of process, but if they know that not following process doesn't net any consequences, they are really free to do as they please.

 

OK, again: "Read what I said... NO, I have no problem with police "telling a suspect their (sic) rights." Maybe 'third-time' will be 'the charm'....

What we must avoid is ever letting people get away with crimes because some liberal defense lawyer managed to trip-up the entire prosecutorial process with a bullshit technicality! Are ya with me now?!

 

No, because failing to read people their rights is a technicality. If you are against cases being dismissed on a technicality, you are against Miranda.

You are either for Miranda, understanding that some guilty will go free because of a technicality (ie: they weren't read their rights)
~or~
You think it'd be nice for police to read someone their rights, but failure to do so will not get the case thrown out of court.

 

Affirmative action is discrimination is it not?

 

The problem was that police were not "lawfully" trying to prosecute suspects. They were not obeying the law. I would rather that 100 people be freed on technicalities than 1 innocent person be railroaded. Personally, I think if policemen break the law in performance of duty, the book should be thrown at them. They should know better, and there is almost nothing worse I can think of than a dishonest law enforcement officer.

 

I would propose an alternative. Failure to read someone their rights should be a felony, but wouldn't get the case thrown out of court. It would get the policeman prosecuted for failure to recognize civil rights.

 

But I do. Besides being horrific in itself, Roe was bad Constitutional precedence. Making law by judicial fiat. And this wasn't the first time it happened. All reversing Roe would do is revert it back to the states, WHERE IT BELONGS! Fret not though baby killers, many states already have trigger laws in place should Roe be overturned.

 

It seems that is the sentiment of many people. In the end, that is likely where the issue should reside.

The Supreme Court, despite it's Constitutional mandate, has created law on a few occasions, the most recent when Roberts created law in the Obamacare case.

 

You used a LOT of 'hypotheticals', Perdi, and gave no specifics.

I do agree that police should always be fair and use proper methods. In my experience with many different kinds of law-enforcement agencies, both civilian and military, they do their jobs BY THE BOOK. Those who do not, or who deliberately falsify evidence, etc., should indeed have "the book thrown at them" -- at high velocity, too!

But, is every policeman, in every case, every time, perfect? No, not in this country, and not in this world....

 

Declare liberalism as a mental disorder.

 

I bet you support the death penalty though even knowing that some innocent people get executed. yes?

 

Apply the Constitution instead of their feelings.

That's all we want.

 

Would that number be higher than the amount of repeat killings done by the murderers we put in jail? Sometimes they escape, get parole and kill again...sometimes they kill on the inside.

The Death penalty of course eliminates 100% of these.

 

Take another look at Transgender nonsense. no one has any right to have their imagination validated as fact, especially when it conflicts with Biological facts.

Stop that nonsense in it's tracks entirely, we can't be validating mental illness.

 

I won't try to 'dance' around your question. Yes, I do support the death penalty for proven, and repeatedly-proven CAPITAL CRIMES. In very, very rare instances a person who did not actually commit the crime is executed. That is sad and regrettable, but it has happened, and although rare, could surely happen again. Nevertheless, I do support the death penalty.

Hint: the death penalty would be MUCH more effective as a deterrent to murder if it were carried out somewhat sooner than, say, twenty years after the accused is found guilty.... Nobody is too worried about a death penalty that takes twenty years, or longer, to be administered.

 

Simply apply the Constitution without eisegesis.

 

Hey why not make a poll so completely biased and idiotic?

 

At what age should gays be able to have sex with children and marry them? 16? 12? 9?

 

Great question! The answer depends on whether you're some "everything's-OK-with-me"-Democrat, or, a RINO, or, a Conservative Republican.

The Democrat would say that it's OK for anybody to have sex with anybody or any thing, without qualification or reservation.
The RINO would say that it depends on whether or not his answer would get him thrown out of office by the Democrat or not.
The Conservative Republican would say, "Anybody who has sex with children should be shot in the guts with a small-caliber weapon so that it takes him several days to DIE...."

 

If the new conservative court overturns the precedent set by the Supreme Court decades ago with Roe vs Wade, isn't that in effect "making law"?

 

How about at the same age that heterosexuals can?

 

It's a short distance from that to refusing service to Latinos or blacks. Is this where you want to go?

 

No more than the nocturnal emissions the left has about overturning Heller.

 

But the point of the question I was responding to was that OceanS15 wanted a court that refrained from "making laws." If we continue what you advocate in a tit-for-tat continuum, what improves?