Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

In It to Win It

(8,236 posts)
Thu Jun 23, 2022, 02:54 PM Jun 2022

Today, Justice Alito ruled that you have constitutional rights but no right to know what they are.

The Nation

In 1966 the Supreme Court created the now famous “Miranda warnings” in the seminal case Miranda v. Arizona. The Constitution had arguably always protected the right against self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment, but the white men who wrote the Constitution never provided practical protections of that right. In Miranda, Earl Warren invented, out of whole cloth, a set of instructions the government would be required to give people in order to protect their rights against self-incrimination, and their right to an attorney (which is found in the 6th Amendment to the Constitution). Everybody has heard of these warnings: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?” Before the decision in Miranda, police would routinely arrest people and bully them into making incriminating statements without allowing them to talk to an attorney. Ernesto Miranda himself was questioned at his home, “voluntarily” taken to the police station, placed in a lineup, and eventually signed a confession, without ever once talking to a lawyer. The idea was to end the practice of law enforcement tricking people out of their Constitutional rights.

Today, in a case called Vega v. Tekoh, the Supreme Court rejects that idea. According to the conservative majority, the Constitution still protects people from incriminating themselves. But now, if cops trick or coerce or threaten or brutalize people into giving up their constitutional rights without telling people they have a right to make the intimidation stop, there’s no way to sue the government for the failure to inform victims of their rights. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a 6-3 conservative majority, might as well have channeled Agent Smith’s famous line from the Matrix: What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?

In Vega, Alito argues that the failure to give Miranda warnings does not result in a Section 1983 cause of action against the government. Section 1983 is the main vehicle for people to sue the government when government actors violate constitutional rights. Alito argues that the Miranda warnings are not a constitutional “right;” they’re just a thing cops can say if they feel like it. If cops violate constitutional rights under the 5th or 6th Amendments, victims can still sue the government (if they can somehow prove a violation occurred), or move to have the evidence unconstitutionally obtained against them at trial excluded. But Alito rejects Miranda’s presumption that constitutional rights are violated if law enforcement fails to give the warning. Essentially, Alito argues that you have constitutional rights but no right to know what those are.

I couldn’t invent a better example of the difference between a Supreme Court controlled by conservatives, versus one controlled by liberals, than the one given by the Court in its decisions in Vega versus Miranda. People often forget that the Miranda case itself was a 5-4 decision over conservative objections. Here, Vega is 6-3, functionally overturning Miranda with all the conservatives in lockstep. If you want robust protections of people’s rights, there is simply no substitute for having liberals control the Court. If you want robust protections of gun rights and corporate rights and Jesus rights, by all means, continue allowing the current conservative majority to rule over all.
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Today, Justice Alito ruled that you have constitutional rights but no right to know what they are. (Original Post) In It to Win It Jun 2022 OP
I expect the worst from these assholes and they are exceeding my expectations. Novara Jun 2022 #1
You are not exaggerating. This is the Extreme Court. dchill Jun 2022 #3
As a practical matter, requiring the Miranda warning imposes a trivial burden on law enforcement unblock Jun 2022 #2
I was told today that is no big deal Aroundabout23 Jun 2022 #5
You mean the lawyer they didn't tell you you were entitled to? unblock Jun 2022 #6
agree completely! Aroundabout23 Jun 2022 #8
First page of every Civics book exboyfil Jun 2022 #4
These are the best and brightest RANDYWILDMAN Jun 2022 #7
I would throw him in jail for so much more In It to Win It Jun 2022 #10
Because how dare people know their rights? sakabatou Jun 2022 #9
Police have to mirandize people when they did before -- when IN custody AND Hortensis Jun 2022 #11

Novara

(5,840 posts)
1. I expect the worst from these assholes and they are exceeding my expectations.
Thu Jun 23, 2022, 02:58 PM
Jun 2022

They are literally re-writing the Constitution by fiat.

unblock

(52,196 posts)
2. As a practical matter, requiring the Miranda warning imposes a trivial burden on law enforcement
Thu Jun 23, 2022, 03:04 PM
Jun 2022

Whereas the consequence of not knowing your rights can be disastrous.

So, constitutional principles aside, it seems that always giving the Miranda warning is just a better process.

Note that without the ability to sue police officers for violating civil rights for failure to mirandize, the police are basically now free to discriminate in whom they choose to give the warning to.

Look for white suspects to get read their Miranda rights more often than minorities....

 

Aroundabout23

(69 posts)
5. I was told today that is no big deal
Thu Jun 23, 2022, 03:07 PM
Jun 2022

Because if the evidene is deemed insubmissible your lawyer will argue agains tit being introduced.


Of course that relies on your public defender doing a good job.

unblock

(52,196 posts)
6. You mean the lawyer they didn't tell you you were entitled to?
Thu Jun 23, 2022, 03:14 PM
Jun 2022

Yeah.

Well, Miranda rights came about for good reason. Look for police to resurrect old, discredited interrogation tactics to extract more false confessions and evidence that would be against legal advice.

Note that talking when it would be against legal advice had a lawyer been there to advise you can be harmful in more ways than merely allowing evidence that should be excluded from trial.

Such improperly extracted evidence could be used to further an investigation that leads to evidence that can't be excluded. Or it could lead to someone else making a confession, false or otherwise.

It also furthers the disparity in the judicial process in treatment of poor vs. rich people. Those affected by this will nearly always be poor people.

RANDYWILDMAN

(2,668 posts)
7. These are the best and brightest
Thu Jun 23, 2022, 03:20 PM
Jun 2022

that judicial crisis network can buy


Can we throw alito in Jail for abusing his white privilege ?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
11. Police have to mirandize people when they did before -- when IN custody AND
Thu Jun 23, 2022, 06:47 PM
Jun 2022

being interrogated.

People can still sue municipalities in civil court for monetary damages. This says they can't sue the officers involved in civil court.

This isn't good, but if we really thought this meant we have no right to know what our constitutional rights are, why wouldn't we be in the streets RIGHT NOW?! And if the truth isn't bad enough...? Isn't it?

We know where this court is going. People calling "wolf" need to retain credibility.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Today, Justice Alito rule...