Or when they say the first time the Supreme Court took away a right. They're so ignorant.
Aside from Roe taking away the right to life itself, which is way more fundamental than medical privacy by the way, there's been plenty of times the Supremes have taken away rights.
For example, they've taken away our right to remain silent. If police start chatting you up with basic question and you answer then you've waived your right to silence and when they ask "so that's when you decided to kill him isn't it?" and you take the 5th now you're guilty; the jury can be instructed that your not answering is evidence of guilt because you waved your right to silence by telling the police about your college major and that you like pizza. Exaggerating a little, but it's absurd that you can ever be forced to answer or else incriminate yourself.
Not exaggerating just completely wrong. You can reestablish your right to remain silence by explicitly taking it. Also your refusal to speak cannot be used against you. Don't spread bullshit
"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" unless they don't say some magic words at the right time. Yeah now I remember in the Federalist Papers where they added that second part...
Silence Dogood? More like Silence Gojail.
Now if you just get up and walk out of a "voluntary" interview that you can "leave at any time" you're sending yourself to prison. That's a right we don't have any more.
The FF's would be rolling in their grave if they knew people today are forced to answer "when did you stop beating your wife" with a ritualistic formula so as to not go to jail.
Or when they say the first time the Supreme Court took away a right. They're so ignorant.
Aside from Roe taking away the right to life itself, which is way more fundamental than medical privacy by the way, there's been plenty of times the Supremes have taken away rights.
For example, they've taken away our right to remain silent. If police start chatting you up with basic question and you answer then you've waived your right to silence and when they ask "so that's when you decided to kill him isn't it?" and you take the 5th now you're guilty; the jury can be instructed that your not answering is evidence of guilt because you waved your right to silence by telling the police about your college major and that you like pizza. Exaggerating a little, but it's absurd that you can ever be forced to answer or else incriminate yourself.
Not exaggerating just completely wrong. You can reestablish your right to remain silence by explicitly taking it. Also your refusal to speak cannot be used against you. Don't spread bullshit
"The case involved an early 1990s murder where Salinas voluntarily agreed to answer questions by the police. The questioning went on for at least an hour with no problems. Then, the police asked some more incriminating questions about bullets found at the crime scene. At that point, Salinas completely stopped speaking. Prosecutors on the case later used that silence against Salinas, saying it demonstrated his guilt. The tactic worked and Salinas was found guilty of murder."
"Court said that this right to remain silent is not self-executing and that it must be claimed before it can arise."
"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" unless they don't say some magic words at the right time. Yeah now I remember in the Federalist Papers where they added that second part...
Silence Dogood? More like Silence Gojail.
Now if you just get up and walk out of a "voluntary" interview that you can "leave at any time" you're sending yourself to prison. That's a right we don't have any more.
The FF's would be rolling in their grave if they knew people today are forced to answer "when did you stop beating your wife" with a ritualistic formula so as to not go to jail.
Can you name that court decision? Sounds almost as big as Obama taking away habeus corpus.