Few today remember, but ther was a time before Miranda, when the burden of knowing what your rights were, and when you could utilize them was on the citizen. Police did not have to tell you what your rights were. If you didn't know them, too bad for you.
Also few today remember just how unpopular in, and out of the law enforcement community that the Miranda ruling was at the time it was made.
A couple of generations have now grown up with it, and it is the accepted norm. But only because of that long ago court that felt police were taking unfair advantage of suspects who (for what ever reason) were not aware of their rights. The court today can reverse that decison (which is does not appear to be what they have done here) and it will be perfectly legal, and constitutional.
It is the place of the high court to determine how laws are applied within the framework of the Constitution. We may not always agree with their decision. Logic may not always agree with their decision. But their decisions are the law of the land, until and unless a future high court over rules them. At one time, the high court decided that human slavery was legal in the United States. We have come a very, very long way from that time, but the system is still the same. If a future high court rules that slavery is legal in the US, (ok, extreme, but not absolutely impossible) then it would be the law of the land, until repealed/revoked by that same high court.
Remember the Heller decision was only decided by ONE vote on the court!
That is why it is so important that the people appointed to the high court be without political designs. If there is a serious flaw in our system of govt. it is the high court. The Founders felt (and rightly so) that only people of good moral character would be able to be impartial enough to divorce themselves from their personal opinions and so render fair and impartial jusgement.
And, while it may always have been so, it is, unfortunately, clear that in the last century the appointments to the high court have become increasingly political in nature, and in effect. Nature of the beast, I suppose, but something that shouldn't have happened. Of course, being humans, we are fallible.
So now we come to today, where we are dealing not only with indiviual crime and criminal gangs as we are used to, but also zealots and fanatics practicing what is currently called "terrorism". And police of all kinds are finding that dealing effectively with these people is hampered by granting them the same rights American citizens have in our legal system.
And we are seeing two different approaches to dealing with this situation. The previous administration wanted them kept out of the US (civilian) legal system. Calling them enemy combatants, and keeping them outside the regular US borders, to prevent them having access to those rights the legal system gives everyone (citizen or not) inside the US borders.
Now, the current administration faces the same challenge, and worse, "terrorists" already inside the US, and their approach seems to be, grant them the same rights as the rest of us. But reduce what those rights are. I may be wrong, but seems to be what they are asking for. Its not what they got....yet.
Remember that lots of people in authority in the US are real big on "equal treatment under the law", and if we agree to allow any (even "temporary") reduction or abeyance of our rights to "get" terrorists, those new rules will be applied to all of us, sooner, or later.
Think hard on that. And pass on your opinion to your senator about each, and every high court nominee. It's more important that it seems, because while administrations and congress members come and go with election cycles, high court decisions remain for ever, unless overruled by the high court at a later date.
