This Just In: Obama legal team wants to LIMIT defendants’ rights

Just when the wackiness of our new Democratic People’s Republic of America seemed it could not get any wierder, Obama now is seeking to take away the rights of people in custody from their basic Maranda Rights of keeping silent until a lawyer is present, and who said Obama would reverse all the civil liberty injustices Bush created after 9-11?  Who on the left could believe this if it were not true and in black and white in the Chicago Tribune and others!  Here we go Amerika, we know all who oppose or speak out against Dear Leader are labeled hate mongering racists, now the tools of our basic rights are being tweeked more and more, for those who voted for this man, if feel for you, I really do, sorry to say I told you so…
Supreme Court case is stark example of the White House seeking to limit rights.
From The Associated Press 4:08 PM CDT, April 23, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.  The administration’s action — and several others — have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat’s call for change during the 2008 campaign.
Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.  The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.  Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.  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.
At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."
The administration’s legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.  The administration’s position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens’ 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.  "Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration’s position "is disappointing, no question."  Bright said that poor defendants’ constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration’s position. Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow. Eleven states also are echoing the administration’s call to overrule the 1986 case.
Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January over the rights of Jesse Montejo, the Louisiana death row inmate.
Montejo’s lawyer, Donald Verrilli, urged the court not to do it. Since then, Verrilli has joined the Justice Department, but played no role in the department’s brief. Copyright Chicago Tribune.
Yep, its beginning to look like the agenda of this administration goes well beyond the ‘flower in gun barrel’ Berkley crowd of the 1960’s and ’70’s.  We are entering a brave new world of liberalism where only some rules apply to certain people and to all else, well we can see where that road is leading.  Get ready for the unisex gray uniforms and little red books folks, what Dear Leader wants, Dear Leader gets, Dear Leader help us all! 
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to This Just In: Obama legal team wants to LIMIT defendants’ rights

  1. Jeffrey says:

    Amerika is so last administration. This administration it\’s Ameriqua. I don\’t like this either, but I have to wonder what you would have thought had this happened six months ago? "Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January …" – when in January?? Who is this guy? How did he get on the highest court? Am I to think that you think the Bush administration was blocking this? Ha! Yes, the sky is falling. It\’s been falling for 8 years! How come you just now notice? No offense, but this seems opportunistic. Anyway, just my 2¢…

  2. John says:

    While I was no cheerleader for G.W., the Patriot Act, or legislation from the bench, and have even spoken out on those there is a macarbe silliness to an uber liberal being elected and then refusing to curtail the executive powers granted to him by the past administration or to even suggest he may try to instill some of his campaign promises to bring back integrity, honesty, and openness to Washington, just campaign stump lies that the public ate up and now we have to live with for at least 2 years, possible 4. While W. was running around doing his zaniness Pelosi and Reid held legislative majorities for 4 years, 4 years! So excuse me if I don\’t buy the 8 years line, the Dems were in charge the last 4 with only thin opposition via filabuster threats. But while we mock and attack each other real civil liberties, rights, and oppertunities are being sold or taken away each passing week. I have been writing my Democrat representatives, Pelosi, and heads of Senate comittees only to get deaf replies or canned thank you blow offs. The leaders don\’t care, only through things like Tea Parties and grass roots campiagns to stop all this will real change, hope, and oppertunity happen, of course unless this change, hope, and oppertunity was for those in the world who want to see us fail, Chevez, Castro, Il, Iran (can\’t remember how to spell the name), Medalev, Hu, etc. The funny thing is the outrage in the press under these same things when Bush was doing similar items is now vacant, lacking, and silent, this only illustrates the sheer hypocracy of the left. Nothing against you, I am seething against CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS for not covering these stories with the same passion and gumption they did 6 months ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s