Did SCOTUS get rid of Miranda Rights?

[Anonymous]

https://www. scotusblog. com/2022/06/tantamount-to-nothing-miranda-rights-cannot-be-wronged/

[joeldalton]

did you actually read the link you posted?

[Asker]

Maybe I misunderstood it but I thought you can't sue the state for defamation for testimony you gave before Miranda rights were read to you.

[joeldalton]

so is that the same thing as "getting rid" of miranda rights?

[Asker]

It defeats the purpose at least on a social level.

[joeldalton]

And here I was thinking you did understand what you read. Guess I was wrong.

[Pterodon]

Nope

[Asker]

They didn't? I thought they told the one guy he couldn't sue the cops for defamation.

[Pterodon]

They didn’t

[monorprise]

States have long asserted a concept known as sovereign immunity maintaining you could not sue them unless they specifically allowed it.

[Anonymous]

The Federal court absolute should, nowhere in the Federal Constitution nor any law passed by any legislator does the text the 6 Federal Oligarchs in black robes suddenly required police to say in their 1966 Miranda v. Arizona appear.

This wasn't a thing prior to that dictatorial edict.

That is why they are called "Miranda rights" in reference the particular edict. Not some act or description of what they are, nor reference to any article or amendment to the constitution, nor any law voted on by the elected representatives of the people.

[Asker]

I thought it was because the Miranda Rights was created when the American people actually gave a damn about due process and now they don't. I thought the ruling stated that, in it's current form, MR did not protect people from court of public opinion because there wasn't any need to.

[Opinion Owner]

Due process of law means they can't hang you without you breaking a law made by the legislator, enforced by the executive, as judged guilty by the judicatory.

Unfortunately this sort of thing did happen in the form of lynching or other criminal activity sometimes with the participation of Government officials.

"Miranda rights" which is simply to be read a select few of your rights before arrest were just invented out of whole cloth between over 160 to 90+ years later depending upon where the court decided to add the text to the Constitution.

Few countries on Earth do this, for the same reason ignorance of the law is not accepted as an excuse.

The truth is the domain of your rights are nearly infinite to include everything not explicitly ceded by the written law. Reminding you of a few of them thou perhaps nice is placing those few on a special pedestal and presuming the person who just violated the law was themselfs ignorant of the limits of the same.

The real problem as mentioned is that we didn't agree to such a requirement at all in the Constitution and it should be up to State and local governments to decide what if any reminders are warranted for their own laws.

[Asker]

Ah I see thank you.

[Agape93]

For all intents and purposes, yes

[monorprise]

It will be nice to live under the rule of law rather than the unilateral dictates of 5+ un-elected and unaccountable federal politicians in black robes.

State and Federal legislators can actually write laws defining their respective police behavior and arrest procedures that make sense for each region and situation.

As culturally ingrained as the edict of Miranda was, it was in fact a lawless act of a lawless warn court. There is no text in the Federal Constitution nor any written law that required police to issue the spesfic warning prior to arrest.
That's why they named it after the case in question 1966 Miranda v. Arizona and not any constitutional provision or act agreed to by the people. Prior to that case this was never a thing.

That name case name alone should tell you it was a usurpation.