New site? Maybe some day. Username: SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F) Message: UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop Select Color orange orange-red crimson red firebrick dark red green limegreen teal silver sea-green deeppink tomato coral purple indigo burlywood sandy brown sienna chocolate FONTXXSmallXSmallSmallMediumLargeXLXXL :DG: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Char† ‡ ‰ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ‾ ← ↑ → ↓ ™ – —   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ b i u  add: url  image  video(?) : post by ArrowHead likes Pie at 2007-09-20 00:10:20 From your own link: "Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision not to overrule Miranda. He disputed the notion that Miranda was a constitutional rule, pointing to several cases in which the Court had declined to exclude evidence despite the absence of warnings. Scalia described the majority's decision as an unprincipled compromise between justices who believed Miranda was a constitutional requirement and those who disagreed. He noted that the majority did not state outright that the Miranda warning is a constitutional requirement, but merely that it is "constitutionally based." Scalia further criticized the majority for implying that Congress has no power to override judicially-imposed safeguards of constitutional rights (Marbury v. Madison having settled that Congress may not override judicial interpretations of the Constitution)."

[default homepage]

[print][

3:18:26am May 23,2024 load time 0.00936 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]