The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) website is a fascinating page, and I recommend everyone add it to their bookmarks. You can peruse the history of all the cases, decisions and dissenting opinions of every judgment handed down by them. Especially this week, were you can see how The Land of The Free and the Home of The Brave continues to display a dogged determination not to be so. And it starts deep in the heart o’ Texas.
|Now just wait right here while we call your lawyer.|
The U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiters of law and justice in our land, has ruled in the case of Salinas vs. Texas that unless you loudly and obviously declare so- and you damn well better get it on tape, to boot- merely refusing to answer specific questions put to you by law enforcement is not enough to invoke your Fifth Amendment Rights. The entire case swung on the fact that Salinas had voluntarily went with police to be questioned, and declined to answer only when asked if shotgun shells found at the crime scene would match his weapon. To be fair, you can see their point: as pointed out in the case, answering all the other questions put to you except the vital ones would definitely make a sensible person wonder. It’s a fine line that’s ultimately the point of this specific clause of the Amendment: that no one shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against themselves.
I’ll be honest- as a child I was a bit confused about pleading the Fifth. The specific clause invoked is that no one shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against themselves. I’ve just never been sure why, though, especially since it doesn’t apply to civil cases as the main punitive difference between the two is jail time as a criminal conviction can also result in restitution to the injured parties. But this is for prosecutors to try to sway jurors with during the trial, not for judges to (mis) interpret to the detriment of the citizenry mainly because they’ve got no other argument against it. Slate.com has a pretty good take on the state of things.
The pervasiveness of the ruling isn’t just felt by the left wing and progressives. Even Forbes offered up a few words about what the decision means for white collar investigations. Can’t wait until a ponzi-schemer tries this. You can find a detailed overview of the case which poses the question of when does the Right to Remain Silent begin here.
And there’s that other Texas-based decision regarding Voter Registration. While it’s true that the voting maps in question are outdated, the reasoning behind the law is sound and should still apply to the redrawn maps. There were several cases in the early 90s about congressional redistricting that centered upon disenfranchising the voters which could easily be applied here… except they weren’t. Federal oversight of voting irregularities was often all that stood between rampant voter fraud and illegally striking non-white voters from the polls, even as recently as Bush the Lesser’s first presidential election. ‘Hanging Chads’, anyone?
The implications are clear and amount to the same old same old. As far as knocking non-white, non-Republican voters off the registry, anything goes. Especially when the Supreme Court itself is happy to help out. I’m all for this nation being a Republic- certain criteria should be met before being able to cast votes. But once you’re in, folks just gotta deal with it. Otherwise, what’s the point?
As far as the DOMA rulings striking down restrictions against same-sex marriage go, I’m all for it, but I’ll let some else post about them. I’m not greedy. 🙂