These are the cornerstones of justice. These are the reasons there was an exodus from the Kingdom in England that ultimately led to the Revolutionary War of which we had allies such as France. What is so astounding to me is that the Justices actually do live in Cloud City where everyday is perfect and nothing touches them. If the Justices remove the protections of democracy, they are just as subject to the exploitation as anyone else.
If these six are not enemies of the USA Constitution, which I believe they are, then they are most certainly enemies of the people.
By Ladoris Hazzard Cordell
Top row: (click here) Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito; bottom row: Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett
...Employing an unholy triad of disrespect for judicial precedent, originalism, and magical thinking, Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts are signaling in their dissents, majority opinions, and concurrences a willingness to overrule landmark Supreme Court decisions that established basic constitutional protections in our criminal legal system. Justice Thomas has led the way in this area. By inviting supplicants to bring these cases back to the court, the supermajority is positioned to overturn them. We should be very alarmed. Here is a short list of the constitutional protections that will soon be under threat.
1. The Miranda Warning
Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona established what is commonly known as the Miranda warning—a requirement that anyone in a custodial interrogation by law enforcement must be advised of their right to remain silent and of the right to have an attorney present during questioning....
...2. The Prohibition on Warrantless Searches and the Exclusionary Rule
In four separate opinions in the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment to prohibit warrantless searches and seizures and established the “exclusionary rule” that prohibits the prosecution from using evidence obtained during an unlawful search....
...3. The Right to State-Appointed Counsel and the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
In the 1832 landmark case of Powell v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at a criminal trial. Subsequently, the court has affirmed this right five times....
...4. The Right of the Public to Observe Jury Selection in Criminal Trials
In 1982, the Supreme Court held that the press and public have a qualified First Amendment right to attend criminal trials. Two years later, in 1984, the court ruled that under the First Amendment, open public proceedings in criminal trials included questioning potential jurors (voir dire). And in 2010, the court held that the right to a public criminal trial, including jury selection, was also mandated by the Sixth Amendment....
...5. The Right to a Jury Pool That Reflects the Community
In Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) and in Duren v. Missouri (1979), the Supreme Court upheld the requirement that under the Sixth Amendment, jurors be selected from a representative cross section of the community. In both cases, at issue were state laws that exempted women from jury service....
...Employing an unholy triad of disrespect for judicial precedent, originalism, and magical thinking, Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts are signaling in their dissents, majority opinions, and concurrences a willingness to overrule landmark Supreme Court decisions that established basic constitutional protections in our criminal legal system. Justice Thomas has led the way in this area. By inviting supplicants to bring these cases back to the court, the supermajority is positioned to overturn them. We should be very alarmed. Here is a short list of the constitutional protections that will soon be under threat.
1. The Miranda Warning
Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona established what is commonly known as the Miranda warning—a requirement that anyone in a custodial interrogation by law enforcement must be advised of their right to remain silent and of the right to have an attorney present during questioning....
...2. The Prohibition on Warrantless Searches and the Exclusionary Rule
In four separate opinions in the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment to prohibit warrantless searches and seizures and established the “exclusionary rule” that prohibits the prosecution from using evidence obtained during an unlawful search....
...3. The Right to State-Appointed Counsel and the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
In the 1832 landmark case of Powell v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at a criminal trial. Subsequently, the court has affirmed this right five times....
...4. The Right of the Public to Observe Jury Selection in Criminal Trials
In 1982, the Supreme Court held that the press and public have a qualified First Amendment right to attend criminal trials. Two years later, in 1984, the court ruled that under the First Amendment, open public proceedings in criminal trials included questioning potential jurors (voir dire). And in 2010, the court held that the right to a public criminal trial, including jury selection, was also mandated by the Sixth Amendment....
...5. The Right to a Jury Pool That Reflects the Community
In Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) and in Duren v. Missouri (1979), the Supreme Court upheld the requirement that under the Sixth Amendment, jurors be selected from a representative cross section of the community. In both cases, at issue were state laws that exempted women from jury service....
