• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

hiswoman

hiswoman

Traditional
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
3,049
Reaction score
1,486
Location
Cypress, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Somehow I don't think this is what people hand in mind when they voted for change last November :damn
 
Last edited:
hiswoman said:
Somehow I don't think this is what people hand in mind when they voted for change last November :damn
Click to expand...

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.
Click to expand...

At a minimum, Dear Leader's fan club seems to be troubled.
 
So he want the Supreme Court to step back on a law they unconstitutionally created on their own... seems reasonable to me.
 
Dav said:
So he want the Supreme Court to step back on a law they unconstitutionally created on their own... seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Apparently. Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional Law Professor :wow:
 
hiswoman said:
Apparently. Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional Law Professor :wow:
Click to expand...

Yeah, Dear Leader does claim that about himself. Guess he overlooked that part about right to counsel....pesky thing that.

Dear Leader is as ignorant of the Constitution as he is about everything else.
 
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.
Click to expand...
- Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

So much for President Obama championing civil rights.
 
Dav said:
So he want the Supreme Court to step back on a law they unconstitutionally created on their own... seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Did you oppose teh Patriot Act
 
Oh the show from the left should be good.
How can they completely change their rhetoric to fit? I dunno..but I know they will and the hypocrisy of it will be hilarious and the subsequent mass amnesia event in which they will all forget their previous position will be a hoot as well.

I give the left credit for being so incredibly unreliable that they create comedy.
 
The Patriot Act is a completely different story that I won't get started on in this thread. It was signed into law the constitutional way, even if the constitutionality of its content is debated.

This decision however is just another obstruction to justice waiting to happen:
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.
Click to expand...
 
Dav said:
The Patriot Act is a completely different story that I won't get started on in this thread. It was signed into law the constitutional way, even if the constitutionality of its content is debated.

This decision however is just another obstruction to justice waiting to happen:
Click to expand...

On that count, I actually agree with Obama's legal team. I thought the Miranda Rights were enough clarification of a person's rights to speak or not, with or without counsel. After the police recite those rights, complete with a request for confirmation that a person understands them, responsibility is then on that person to either waive those rights or not.

That being said, I also don't think a person should have to ask twice for a lawyer if they are being questioned by the police. The police should be forced to comply with that request the first time it is made and cease all questioning until counsel arrives.
 
I was merely trying to see where you stood on another issue to get a feel for your answer.
 
celticlord said:
Yeah, Dear Leader does claim that about himself.
Click to expand...

He taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, which is by no means a slouch school.

Guess he overlooked that part about right to counsel....pesky thing that.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, nobody's right to council is being rescinded. Simply, police can initiate questioning when the lawyer is not present. The defendant does not have to answer questions, and still has a right to counsel. Furthermore, I think the police do this anyway.


Duke
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged.
 
Duke said:
If I understand correctly, nobody's right to council is being rescinded. Simply, police can initiate questioning when the lawyer is not present. The defendant does not have to answer questions, and still has a right to counsel. Furthermore, I think the police do this anyway.
Click to expand...

Once a person asks for a lawyer, the police should not ask him anything at all. Complete and total silence should be the standard until an attorney is present.

A person cannot tell what is a "harmless" question from a cop and what might be part of an interview/interrogation. He is inherently operating from a position of inferior knowledge about the cop's intent. Given the nature of the Miranda warning, "anything you say may be used in evidence against you," (or words to that effect) once a person has exercised his right to counsel, until he has the advantage and advice of counsel, the police should respect that right, and cease from attempting to pry any further information out of him.
 
celticlord said:
Once a person asks for a lawyer, the police should not ask him anything at all. Complete and total silence should be the standard until an attorney is present.

A person cannot tell what is a "harmless" question from a cop and what might be part of an interview/interrogation. He is inherently operating from a position of inferior knowledge about the cop's intent. Given the nature of the Miranda warning, "anything you say may be used in evidence against you," (or words to that effect) once a person has exercised his right to counsel, until he has the advantage and advice of counsel, the police should respect that right, and cease from attempting to pry any further information out of him.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. This is what should be the rules, what should happen. I was just referring to what does happen.


The Duke of Not Feeding Trolls
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom