What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScoobyDoo said:
Why are they holding back the abortion ruling?
Click to expand...

Short answer, only they know.

Long answer, i don't think anything untoward is going on there. But for the leak, we'd have expected it to come out near the end of the term. The fact that an early draft was leaked shouldn't change that expectation.
 
6th and final one of the day is out. Nothing major, other than the last case that was dismissed as improvidently granted involved a bunch of R states trying to intervene to defend a Trump decision after Biden's administration declined to do so.
 
Out of the 18 left to decide, I'd characterize these as the major ones left:

NY Rifle: gun control
Dobbs: abortion
Kennedy: religion in public schools
Biden v Texas: remain in Mexico policy

Could be major depending on ruling:
Carson: tuition assistance for religious schools
WVa v EPA: scope of agency power
Berger: Right of legislators to intervene in court cases
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Ok, is this true? SC may overturn Miranda? First I’ve heard
https://twitter.com/dlcc/status/1537175113623392257?s=21&t=WnjnJwxSGVWvSDkna9AvlA
Click to expand...

It's a gross exaggeration of what is likely or what the Court is actually poised to do. Could the Court rule so broadly? Sure, in so much as anytime there's a case involving one is the Miranda rights there's a chance it could nullify them.

But realistically, the case was about whether a person can bring a 1983 action against a cop when the only alleged violation was not Mirandizing them and the resulting confession was used to help convict them. The Court, including Sotomayor and Kagan, seemed united that was not enough to support a 1983 action, since the there are intervening causes of the harm there - the prosecutor had to introduce it, the judge had to allow it, your own attorney may or may not have failed to try to suppress it, the jury had to believe it, etc - and you can't prove the cop's actions legally caused the harm to you fire purposes of a resulting civil case.

In any event, nothing about the case suggested Miranda would disappear as a staple in criminal cases.
 
unofan said:
It's a gross exaggeration of what is likely or what the Court is actually poised to do. Could the Court rule so broadly? Sure, in so much as anytime there's a case involving one is the Miranda rights there's a chance it could nullify them.

But realistically, the case was about whether a person can bring a 1983 action against a cop when the only alleged violation was not Mirandizing them and the resulting confession was used to help convict them. The Court, including Sotomayor and Kagan, seemed united that was not enough to support a 1983 action, since the there are intervening causes of the harm there - the prosecutor had to introduce it, the judge had to allow it, your own attorney may or may not have failed to try to suppress it, the jury had to believe it, etc - and you can't prove the cop's actions legally caused the harm to you fire purposes of a resulting civil case.

In any event, nothing about the case suggested Miranda would disappear as a staple in criminal cases.
Click to expand...

Uno, Miranda didn't actually change or add any constitutional rights did it--only added the now famous language as a legal requirement to ensure any waiver is "knowing and voluntary?" I didn't practice criminal law but seem to recall that from crim pro eons ago.
 
burd said:
Uno, Miranda didn't actually change or add any constitutional rights did it--only added the now famous language as a legal requirement to ensure any waiver is "knowing and voluntary?" I didn't practice criminal law but seem to recall that from crim pro eons ago.
Click to expand...

My wife's the crim law expert, but that sounds right. Miranda merely gives weight to the 5th, and 6th amendments and sets forth the remedy for violations (exclusion of wrongfully obtained evidence from trial).
 
unofan said:
My wife's the crim law expert, but that sounds right. Miranda merely gives weight to the 5th, and 6th amendments and sets forth the remedy for violations (exclusion of wrongfully obtained evidence from trial).
Click to expand...

My recollection was that the Court took the unusual step of actually spelling out the warning needed to establish "knowing and voluntary" built out a distrust for law enforcement's representations of whether the D truly understood and intended. The poisonous tree doctrine was already established, but the Court basically put it on the line saying that if these words are not recited, then you lose. Amazing, actually, that a court applying and interpreting the constitution required exact language to meet a constitutional threshold.

Or maybe that was another case in torts. :)
 
unofan said:
My wife's the crim law expert, but that sounds right. Miranda merely gives weight to the 5th, and 6th amendments and sets forth the remedy for violations (exclusion of wrongfully obtained evidence from trial).
Click to expand...

Our cats are named after the two cases Scalia said he hated the most: Miranda and Casey. We got them on the day he died.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top