(Indianapolis, IN) The Supreme Court yesterday reaffirmed the landmark 1967 Miranda ruling requiring police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to legal representation and against self-incrimination.  In a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court cited precedent and culture as reasons not to overturn the famous ruling.

Rehnquist wrote that, “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.”  When asked whether other cop show cultural icons, such as Dennis Franz’s ass, would metamorphose into constitutional protections, the Chief Justice became noticeably aroused before excusing himself from the room.

The two Justices to vote against the Miranda warnings were…you guessed it…Clarence “Uncle” Thomas and Antonin Scalia.  Scalia, in a really bitter little opinion, wrote, “this is not the system that was established by the framers, or that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.”  Scalia, himself a shining example of sanity in juris-prudence, went on to claim that the majority decision was an act of “judicial arrogance.”

And bully to Tony for his half-witted opinion.  While I’m extremely happy that the Court ruled the way that it did, I can’t believe we could find two people – even two toilet-hugging fascists like Scalia and Thomas – to vote against simply informing accused criminals of their constitutional rights.

Paul “don’t call me Sam” Cassell, a professor at the world renowned University of Utah School of Law (43rd in US News’ 2000 rankings…motto: “learn law the Ute way”) and a leading crusader against Miranda said, “the tragic result of today's opinion will be that thousands of confessed, dangerous criminals will go free merely because some police officers have made a mistake in following the highly technical Miranda rules.”

Wow…outstanding point, Paul.  Just think of how many dangerous criminals we could put away if we got rid of those pesky Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments altogether.

In all seriousness, it is tragic that guilty people will certainly go free because of technicalities such as those imposed under Miranda.  But the American legal system has always defaulted toward ensuring that innocent people are not wrongly convicted.  The movement in recent years away from ensuring the rights of the accused in favor of the amorphous concept of “victims rights” has been deeply disturbing.  Victims, let’s keep in mind, have the full power of the State behind them.  They have the power to deny freedom and, unfortunately, life to those convicted of crime.  It is those in the crosshairs of the people’s justice who are, by definition, powerless against the will of society’s representatives.  Accused criminals need  rights.  Victims need our sympathy and support.

Furthermore, the only people who don’t already know their rights are people just like Ernesto Miranda: the poor, the uneducated, the immigrant or non-English speaking, and those of diminished mental capacity.  Repealing Miranda would only serve to further injure populations already disproportionately abused by our legal system.

So the next time you hear, "you have the right to remain silent" on TV, think of Clarence Thomas and smile with the knowledge that his vision of America is one step closer to utter failure.

AND THE DANNY GOES TO:
Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA) another married Member of Congress who can't keep his hands to himself.  It now appears that Thomas has been diddling a lobbyist and, in an open letter to his district, Thomas stated that "any personal failures of commitment or responsibility to my wife, family or friends are just that, personal."  Where have I heard that before?  Anybody remember how Bill Thomas voted on H Res. 611?