A decision by the Supreme Court on Tuesday easing rules on police interrogations led the oldest member on the bench to read his dissent aloud in front of the court, the first time that's happened this term.
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for the police and prosecutors to question suspects, lifting some restrictions on when defendants can be interrogated without their lawyers present," David Stout reports for the New York Times.
The Times adds,
In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a defendant once he invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding.
That 1986 ruling has not only proved “unworkable,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, but its “marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs” in that some guilty defendants go free. Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
However, the paper notes, "In an angry dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 1986 decision, said that contrary to the majority’s assertion, that decision protected 'a fundamental right that the court now dishonors.'”
The Associated Press reports, "The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He and Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move Stevens read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud."
Stevens said that the "police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," and that overruling the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."
"The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush," the AP notes.
At The National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle observed, "The timing and contrast were striking: As President Barack Obama introduced Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the nation as his U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Justice Antonin Scalia, sitting on the high court bench, read parts of a 5-4 decision overruling a 23-year-old precedent on the right to counsel."
"It was business as usual for the justices Tuesday but also a reminder of the importance of one vote on a Court still closely divided in key areas of the law," Coyle noted.
A PDF of the opinion can be accessed at this link.
Same as Torture... All about strengthing tyranny
wasn't there something mentioned about change or something? I must have "misheard". nt
change you can believe in
More and more the showman shows what he really is, which is turning out not to be that bad. He's a lot like Clinton; a few trifles to the Democrat-left nutsos, but at his core, more conservative than even conservatives ever imagined. Maybe he'll reconsider leaving Iraq and criticizing President Bush for having liberated that country. He's already backing away from the Guantánamo claims and from everything that's kept us safe since President Bush found himself dealing with the 9/11 catastrophe.
When the constitution becomes "unworkable" or too "costly or inefficient" then the time has come to reform law enforcement and the law rather than the constitution.
Here is what the "piece of paper" (to quote Bush) says about this issue:
(non-relevant portions deleted)
Amendment V
No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
More right-wing JUDICIAL ACTIVISM overturning established law that protected the rights of the individual over the (police) state in a no doubt vain attempt at making the cons feel safe enough to sleep at night. This of course goes against our founders' idea that better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned. But what do you expect from the real judicial activists of our time- the Republican party and its errand boys.
Someone please tell R. Klueless that Obama is not on the Supreme Court.
Good bye USA it was a novel concept
By: Jesse Hemingway
As the United States of America (referred to as the Company) submerges into the cesspool of history as a quaint endeavor we must look at what moments in the Company's brief transit of time at what points did the course get skewed to arrive here (28X).
Ref By: Jan Edwards et al 6/2002 http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ToPRaP.html
The historical problem with taking the low road through time and space; is that your fortitude is always based off of denial and rationalization I know by combing those to words you get the word delusional. To even have the debate on torture is the magnificent crescendo manifestation and now that we have crossed the point of no return the downward spiral will intensify.
I think the R. Krueger's is that Obama's Soliciter General argued on the side of taking away our rights.
I think tha R. Krueger's point is that Obama's Soliciter General argued on the side of taking away our rights.
Does this really surprise anyone? There is nothing left of the Republic that Our forefathers left Us. We now live in a country run by the few(oligachy). The Founders warned Us of this very day. Time to break out the Right to Bear Arms and straighten out this mess.
Keep at it, "Everyman." Remember, one of the things that President Bush put in place was a system to keep an eye on liberal-left nutsos who want to "straighten out this mess." Look at what happened to those creeps who tried to bust up the RNC convention. Act like an adult and respect this great country we have. Stop trying to foment problems. Your showman is in office, so deal with it. The rest of us are.
Can you say "Police State"?
LOL! I can't wait until Scalia dies. I'm going to send balloons and party favors to his family, especially that oldest daughter of his who drove drunk to a Burger King with her kids in the car a couple of years ago....
Igor,
The point is that his daughter accepts Jesus as the One True Savior, so pretty much anything she does in this world doesn't really matter. Her place in heaven is secured by simply holding a non-sensical thought in her head.
Disgusting thugs.
"This country isn't free
as it applies to you an me
and all that you will ever be
I had hoped otherwise but Obama is looking more and more
like just another tool.
is just a lousy janitor
unless you uncle owns a store..."
'Trouble Coming Every Day' Frank Zappa
...and we had an article yesterday about the record "threat" levels to judges and prosecutors. gee...i wonder why. Should the tree be watered??
Yes...the tree is EXTREMELY thirsty....
mike, r kreuger is paid a traitorous neocon plant, just like the Chinese govt maintains a group of internet plants to spread disinfo and propaganda. The're thought process is like this
Insert human need blame problem on 'liberal-nutso lefties" insert repeated claim and repeat smear. They must have fill-in-the-blank template on how to "communicate' this antilife drivel at neoCon HQ because every one of these dopes sounds alike.
Oh yes, the neocon hacks all wrap up with some note about how they are real americans and anyone who disagrees is not.
"The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush," the AP notes.
THIS is Not "Change".
This is business as Bush by Obama.
He's been disappointing his Base a lot lately.
Even Bush wouldn't have done that.
Obama doesn't seem interested in protecting our personal rights, our Constitution or enforcing our Federal Laws on Torture.
Do any of you have some ideas as to how we can get Obama to do his job?
We have a Healthcare Town Hall Meeting here in Denver today.
Poor lemmings... they just don't understand that officials who don't have the courage to enforce Federal Laws or to protect our Constitution will never have the courage to stand up to the
Healthcare Industry or get them Single Payer.
Won't happen!
Making them prosecute the Bush torturers
is the key act that will restore Congress's spine
for doing other things like Healthcare reform.
SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute Them For Torture
http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
Over 250,000 have signed
Join them and call yourself a Patriot
.
R. Krueger, How in the hell did you get the impression that I support the current regime from my post? Not that it's any of your business but I proudly cast my ballot for a THIRD party candidate. I would suspect that back in 1776 you would have been one of the idiots shouting "for king, for country". sheeple like you are what got this ONCE great country in the current shape it is in. Shame on you and all of your ilk.
Bite me, R. Krueger you fascist piece of dung. My great-great-great-great-great-grandfather Gen. Rufus Putnam of the American Revolution did not fight against the Crown so we could have monarchical mad men like George Bush be president.
And for whatever part Obama has played in this miscarriage of justice he should be ashamed and soundly criticized.
Robert Leigh
Zappa quotes!
Hey, lets get serious...
God knows what hes doin
He wrote this book here
An the book says:
He made us all to be just like him,
So...
If were dumb...
Then God is dumb...
(an maybe even a little ugly on the side)
Nygrump,
I agree with you completely.
Sadly, the retard has a point this time...
Obama has no business weakening our civil liberties.
He and his lawyers need to do their jobs and prosecute the war criminals, and leave the rest of us alone.
You still don't have to say a word.
Here's a piece of advice. If you are EVER arrested or questioned by the police,
KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT except to say the following:
I am invoking my right to remain silent and my right to legal counsel.
Then keep your trap shut until your attorney arrives
R. Krueger
Your a law and order Kraut, a NeoCon, and a red koolaid drinking GOPer! I don't worry to much about people like you, I know how tyranny works and the very tools tyranny uses that you support it will be turned against you! You do deserve big gov't tyranny in your life!
Now do you understand why the South seceded? It wasn't about slavery, it was about the rights of the states and the people. Perhaps all of those bumper stickers are right, maybe the South will rise again!
Yeah, keep your mouth shut if you can withstand the torture!
Hi all,
I recommend you guys all check out economist and freedom activist, Murray Rothbard's "Anatomy of the State" & "Against the State."
everything the gvt does is with force. remember that. that's why L vs. R is a FAKE controlled political paradigm.
the parties are a cancer.
be independent. be wary of all politico & lobbyists pushing legislation in the name of good intentions. it's a collective fallacy. It's Tyranny of Good Intentions. whichever way they call it, it's TYRANNY.
I don't think the posters here understand what this decision -- or for that matter the whole issue of right to counsel -- is all about. No one has a fundamental right not to be questioned by police if probable cause exists for them to be detained in regards to a crime that may have been committed. But that doesn't mean you have to answer them. Everyone has a right to remain silent when questioned, with or without presence of counsel. If you're too stupid to keep your big fat mouth shut, then too bad.
Everyone has a right not to be beaten or tortured, or held indefinitely without a hearing before a judge, or denied access to counsel, and this decision did not alter any of these fundamental rights in the slightest. The only thing changed by this eminently reasonable decision was to correct the loony liberals' idea that ignorant criminals should be protected from being maneuvered into confessing their crimes before their legal mouthpiece shows up to thwart justice.
Denny,
And to which "maneuvers" would you be referring?
The cops have a long sordid histoy of beating confessions out of people.
[...] http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/justice-stevens-reads-police-interrogation-dissent-aloud-from-the-b... [...]
hey no fair!
I thought they was talkin bout GOOD change!
Denny Jackson
You imply that only guilty "ignorant criminals" are harmed by this decision as if the police have never arrested and "maneuvered into confessing" people innocent of the charges. That is not correct. And no one should be "maneuvered"; there should be probable cause for arrest, a preponderance of evidence to convict and due process throughout.
The judges are clearly working under the influence of some pharmaceuticals or combinations of legal Pharma with who know what side effects, as such is the case with the current Scotus. Ginsberg and Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas to mention just4. Unseen manipulations and working under the influence are the two reasons judges go against their own common sense. I say old sickly judges working under the influence of multiple drugs should step aside. or let the public know what happy pills they are taking.
Mike at 6, you say it all, or the Constitution does through you. I have not seen any progressive raising concerns that Sotomayor may be a Trojan Horse for Obama on civil liberties and war crimes. And let me preempt anyone who will point out to me that Obama is not on the Supreme Court which made this decision: it is a decision he wanted nevertheless. Some constitutional law expert! He should take lessons from Mike, and Sotomayor just could make the tearing down of the Constitution a 6-3 slam dunk.
John Paul Stevens is 89 and probably the next to go. Very scary.
But can't a suspect refuse to answer all questions from the police?
What if the suspect simply says "no comment" and then waits till he can get a lawyer?
I mean, I suppose I would answer questioning if they brought out the rubber hose.
Their are a lot of people who aren't strong enough to withstand the kind of police interrogation that's common these days. They'll be browbeaten or manipulated or intimidated or abused or tortured into confessing to something they didn't do. After that, it's just up to that prosecutor who wants another "win" before he runs for mayor, the judge who likes to hang 'em high (or just doesn't care), the legal aid lawyer who sleeps through the case or is snowed under, and the cops who want to close the case and don't care how they do it.
There are going to be a lot more innocent people on death row due to this decision.
More proof half the SCOTUS especially Scalia, are NUTS.
Folks, all the defendant had to do was keep quiet. Seems he didn't have the ability to do so, as he confesssed to murder. When the cops asked him to get in the cop car to go look for the murder weapon he could have said "no". He did not. Nor did he have to write a letter of apology to the victims family while in the cop car. The letter is at the center of the case. But the letter came after he had already waived his Miranda rights and confessed. Again, all he had to do was to remain silent. From a quick reading of the opinion there was nothing to indicate that the defendant suffered from any mental or physical infirmities which were exploited by the cops in order to gain cooperation. Again, all he had to do was be silent.
"That 1986 ruling has not only proved “unworkable,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, but its “marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs” in that some guilty defendants go free. Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.", what ever happened as one poster put it and law has maintained that a thousand guilty should go free than one innocent man be imprisoned. This is horrible, we are changing laws in order to make it easier for the police/govt. to prosecute crime. So in case the cop screws up it won't penalize the case and have it thrown out because of a constitutional and procedural manner. Yea, can't let a cop punching you in the mouth mess up a case against you, can't have a cop dropping drugs on you stop the prosecution of you going to prison and screwing up your lilfe.
Denny Jackson, you need to understand something about people and individuality. We as a people are social animals (animals as the wolf, monkey, etc. etc.) and in a social system, there is a form of hierarchy that is part of our group the Alpha male and the Alpha female etc. etc.. In our homosapien societal structure, it's hidden by procedures and job title and wealth and whatever, but it's there. So in a room with two officers or one and with you or me or anybody in that room, the officers subconsciously or consciously (it's a trick they are aware of) consider themselves the Alpha of that small group. So like all Beta's and below the Alpha, the group tries to please the Alpha in order to get a seat at the table or more time to eat the deer carcas or access to females. But the word here is PLEASE the Alpha leader.
So when the cop knows and portrays himself to be the leader and recognize you as seeing him as the leader, it makes it easy for him to manipulate you into giving more information because he tries to belittle you or intimidate you or play on a persons insecurities in order to make you say what he or she wants in order they will stop. When we had the law of I want a lawyer, they would stop and process you and you wouldn't talk to them again without your lawyer present. Now once you say that you want a lawyer, they can say okay we will get you one and still be berrating you intimidating you and playing off your insecurities until the lawyer walks into the room. Also, whats to stop them from delaying you from making that one phone call to a lawyer or somebody to get one. I mean they could say wait it's busy or we will get to you and your phone call and they could have the cops in that interrogation room for another 3 hours working you over. When you asked for a lawyer before the change in the law they stopped and they didn't have no reason to not let you call because they couldn't question you anyway. So it's in there best interest to delay your lawyer long enough that you would have hanged yourself by the time he gets into the room. And I don't need to mention the state appointed attorney that may be needed and delayed for hours.
Also I totally agree with you Jesse Hemingway. Just the idea of debating torture is a sign that not only have we crossed the Rubicon, but it's 2 hills behind us and Rome is up the road. I believe that this experiment called The United States of America will be one that will be in the history books of the worlds children. We as a nation and a people as you have pointed out use denial and rationalization to explain anything that smacks of hypocrisy to the rest of the world and to our own people. We have done it for so long that we vote against our best interest in order for the elite in the US to stay in power and get richer and the rest get poorer and have less power. When the school kids of the near future speak of how the USA imploded and broke into 7 countries, they will debate with each other this or that and other things. But it will be really simple. They let there delusional state and there rationalization of everything get to such a point, that anything that a person in the majority or the minority did was considered acceptable as long as it wasn't done to anybody in power. They let there hatred and there shortsightedness and there pettyness be the object of virtue, but let tolerance and foresight and respect for individuality potray people as being week. They have let the elite in their country dumb down the populace enough where they where able to make people believe what they said.
I hope this does happen, it's the only way that will shake people out of the state of mind they are in.
Well, let's just have SCOTUS toss out Miranda and call it a day. Un-fucking-believable.
Hey Freddy Krueger - I'm sorry, WHO was president September 11, 2001? WHO was president during the Anthrax debacle? Seems to me Chimpy McFlightsuit DIDN'T KEEP US SAFE, numbnuts.
sspeedracer
change you can believe in
You must have misread that. i think it's 'change you can't believe in'
r krueger
zeig heil. polish those jackboots
Justice Stevens reads police interrogation dissent aloud from the bench...
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for the police and prosecutors to question suspects, lifting some restrictions on when defendants can be interrogated without their lawyers present," David Stout reports for the New York Times....
It is beyond my understanding how 5 Justices of the US Supreme Court can have ruled as the majority did. It is a shame.
Bob devo at 26. One of the side benefits of DNA studies is that if you go back 6 generations on the male side of your family, the probability of your claimed ancestor being in fact a biological ancestor approaches zero. Yeah, fool, your female forebearers screwed around. So did mine, but they were smart enough to check the newborns for anything wrong because they were breeding too close to the bone. When my mom was dying, I got her hooked up on a morphine drip and laid it to her.
We covered everything ruthlessly as practice for her talking to my 6 brothers and sisters. No coverups, no lies, no bs. It was brutal. The first thing that I asked her was why the woman was screaming. She told me that I could not have been two years old. That the old women checked the neighbor's daughter's baby. It had too many toes or fingers, I can't remember, but they held the mother inside and held the baby outside until it died. I have great genes but my ancestors were a bunch of ruthless hillbillies. The second question I asked her was how old she was when her brother Lee raped her. It was brutal but there was some real shit to be cleaned up and finalized.
Buck Johnson 47
I believe that history will decide that the failure of our country was caused by Supreme Court judge John Marshall seizing power to the Supreme Court that was not written or implied in the Constitution.
Replace Roberts with Jesse Ventura! Ventura may not understand how to criminalize our police departments like Roberts does, but Ventura has something that Roberts does not have a trace of or understand at all, Ventura has Common Human Decency!
Just as in the Michigan v. Jackson case, you can bet that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Judge Sotomayor is confirmed.
I had to search yesterday to find anyone discussing or any information (none I could find) about Judge Sotomayor's view on the abortion issue...almost as if this topic was being deliberately avoided...and yet the Republican Party, and its religious fundamentalist base, over the past thirty years has made the overturning of Roe v. Wade one of its top priorities, so that abortion will once again be outlawed.
Today, I saw a CNN scroll line reporting on one abortion-related case heard by Judge Sotomayor while on the 2nd Circuit, one involving federal funding of overseas family planning organizations, even those that perform abortions, which the Bush administration had decided to defund.
Regarding the equal protection clause, her opinion essentially said that the government (BushCo) could favor the anti-abortion folks over the pro-choice groups and could withhold federal funding from those overseas health organizations that provided an abortion as an option.
"Unitary executive," anyone?
Roe v. Wade being gutted by an anti-abortion administration?
I just bet Judge Sotomayor is a Catholic (I haven't seen nor heard her religious background mentioned), primarily because of her Puerto Rican background, but is she a liberal pro-choice Catholic or is she a Bill Donohue/Antonin Scalia-like Catholic?
If she is the latter, then you can bet she will side with the anti-abortion Catholics on the Supreme Court and, the first chance these arch-conservatives get within the next year, overturn Roe v. Wade, making abortions illegal, probably even in those cases where a pregnant woman's life might be in danger.
The arch-conservative ultra-orthodox anti-abortion religious fundamentalist terrorists have been waiting for years for just such an opportunity as the retirement of Justice Souter presents...and the Blue Dog Democrat Republican-enablers, especially in the Obama administratoin, are no different...and probably explains why Judge Sotomayor's view on abortion is being skirted, if not outright ignored.
The FIX is on...with conservatives pulling a similar stunt to that which they pulled before BushCo started the Iraq War in March 2003. Misdirection, smoke and mirrors and outright lies.
Freddy Kruger
'He's already backing away from the Guantánamo claims and from everything that's kept us safe since President Bush found himself dealing with the 9/11 catastrophe.'
Yes, he, like Bush and Cheney, is a corporatist-fascist, if you feel the need for precise terminology. You are just figuring that out now are you?
By now, I guess that outs a little grin on your chubby face, being the authoritarian-submissive personality type who desires, nay, requires a daddy-protector for a leader.
Now, I guess you are beginning to understand why Obama is protecting Bushco as he is a co-conspirator already guilty himself of multiple war crimes and numerous abrogations of articles of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions such as prohibited weapons, torture and murder. The Obama-apologists are slowly realizing one by one that Obama is Bush and Cheney in a better suit. Furthermore, under international treaties and in observance of the Geneva Convention, refusing to investigate Bush and Cheney's mob is clearly and unequivocally a crime. His obligations under these agreements supercede US law and effectively become the supreme law of the land. Feel free to look that fact up.
Given that that is so, he had better stack that court with more conservatives to protect himself because he could otherwise face prosecution for this dereliction of duty and failing to live up to his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, something Bush certainly failed to do as we all know.
I here the words fascism/marxism/socialism etc. tossed around a lot lately but most people do not understand or appreciate what most or all of those terms actually mean. They are just used as ad hominems by a bunch of stupids.
In fact, you live today in a fascist/authoritarian state and you don't recognize it but as things deteriorate, as the will be shortly, you will feel the hot breath of authoritarianism on your neck.
Unfortunately and perhaps rather ironically, it's going to be Barack Obama who declares martial law when the civil unrest escalates to unmanageable proportions approximately this summer or early fall when the effects of the global economic collapse begins to become painfully obvious to those still only moderately affected.
Hope you don't get swept up in the inevitable security crackdown. Not.
Ron Hager
"Replace Roberts with Jesse Ventura! Ventura may not understand how to criminalize our police departments like Roberts does, but Ventura has something that Roberts does not have a trace of or understand at all, Ventura has Common Human Decency!"
I agree. He may not be the brightest bulb on the porch but he is a decent and honorable man, *extremely rare* in the savagely corrupt world of politics.
This makes me want to vomit. I thought that's why we called them 'precidents,' because they set the standard. And now they can just change old rulings?
Scalia is one big fucking asshole and he's been power-trippin' the entire time on the bench. Read his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalia he blathers on about god even though I'm pretty sure the founding fathers went out of their way to keep god out of the government.
""clear that he [Scalia] thought anyone who did not want school children to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words 'under God' in it deserved a spanking.""
Hey asshole! 'under god' wasn't even IN the original pledge! It was only added until fucking religitards like you pestered the government into fucking adding it! And it was written by a fucking baptist minister (who understand better than you did the separation of church and state)!
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist...Bellamy's original Pledge read, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
Take your fucking god and stick it right up your fucking ass, you piece of shit Scalia.
This is why Raw needs a preview button. Obviously, I forgot to close the italics after 'spanking,' which I bet Scalia loves.
R. Krueger: Bush (& Co.) CREATED the 9/11 catastrophe! Where have you been living, under a rock?!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled.htm
Since 1954, tens of millions of school children in America recited the Pledge of Allegiance without much controversy:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
But in 2002-JUN, Michael A. Newdow, an Atheist from Sacramento, CA, was successful in having the phrase "under God" declared unconstitutional by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, an act by Congress limited the power of the Judiciary, thus preventing the removal of the phrase.
Lets hope RS comments allow tags since there's no preview...Anyway, everything above is a direct quote from the link provided at the top.
What nobody seems to get is the 1986 case put an end -- for the most part -- to teams of cops keeping a suspect or just some poor slob they picked up and worked over in shifts for a day or two not allowing them to sleep to wrangle a confession out of them.
Justice Stevens reads police interrogation dissent aloud from the bench in lieu of his physic . . .
~
My money says Veronicaf kicks R. Krueger's arse. I rest my case.
hey !!!! not much difference between the dems and the republicans,is there? i knew it was over some time ago, now you do too.
Thank you, Herr Kreuger. Now go back to your Adolf Hitler shrine and say a prayer for Goebbels and Goering.
Everything is moving along... right on schedule!
The one world prison planet will soon be our!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!
By the way, all your emails have been traced.
Those that make waves will soon get a 'special' visit.
I thought it went against the Supreme Court's tradition to reverse itself. Any lawyers here. Why would they do that?
SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute Those that Tortured In Our Name
http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
Over 250,000 have signed
Join them and call yourself a Patriot
.
[...] Raw Story Blog Share and Enjoy: [...]
Learn how to farking format your page so the text isn't cut off! Otherwise, props to the Justice.
It goes to show that the 2nd amendment is needed. One just have to hope that someone soon takes advantage of his 2nd amendment rights and pre-retires one of these totalitarian bastards before they continue the work of the nutcase Bush and turns the US into a totalitarian police state.
Denny Jackson
The only thing changed by this eminently reasonable decision was to correct the loony liberals' idea that ignorant criminals should be protected from being maneuvered into confessing their crimes before their legal mouthpiece shows up to thwart justice.
No. What this does is permit law enforcement to exploit the most vulnerable in society, the poor and undereducated (blacks and latinos, usually).
There will always be a need to keep the private prison industry fat and happy.
Dunno, bush and obama look to me like the very same kind of t_urd. Or should I say f_ucking murderer ?