|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Do you believe Miranda v Arizona was a proper ruling by The Supreme Court?
Yes, while the constitution is vague and ambiguous in general.
Miranda was one of four similar cases. And while the dissent in this 5-4 decision was based on the feeling that it would allow criminals to get back into the street, it really depended on the police following or not following a few sentences to the detainee.
The purpose of any constitutional protection is to protect the innocent at the expense of letting the bad guy go free.
An arrest by a police officer is merely an opinion. And in my opinion, once the police detain, that is when you need the protection.
And once in custody, that is when you need your counsel. And it has little to do whether the person is guilty or innocent. It is especially important for the innocent as the criminals are usually schooled in the law.
What do you think about the argument that no where in the Constitution is it stated that law enforcement has advise someone of their rights? That there was no law requiring it?
Constitution is a very terse doc. you can see from the expansion of the 14th Amt the courts feel free to take liberty to whatever the SCOTUS thinks is politically the way they should go.
Right to an atty is useless without Miranda.
Thompkins effectively gutted Miranda. - there are no Miranda rights anymore.
by pmccray8 years ago
I like to read the opinion of my fellow hubbers regarding the ruling struck down by the Supreme Court today. It seems that the all Republican appointees struck down a ruling regarding regulation of corporations'...
by leeberttea7 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is...
by John D Wilson19 months ago
With the recent decisions by the Supreme Court, are we losing the fabric that once made up the U.S.?Changing laws to fit decisions, deciding that homosexuals can marry, getting rid of the Ten Commandments...
by Person of Interest5 years ago
"Republicans and Democrats are girding for a politically explosive week as the Supreme Court prepares to rule as early as Monday on the federal health care overhaul."http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06...
by Longhunter6 years ago
Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court, what do you think Obama's reaction will be if Obamacare is struck down?
by Ralph Schwartz2 years ago
Will President Obama nominate a minority for the Supreme Court?With the death of Antonin Saclia, Supreme Court justice, President Obama can potentially sway the high courts leaning direction, upsetting the current...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.