HOW CAN THE INSISTENCE BE "LONG-STANDING" WHEN THE "RIGHT" ISN'T:

Has the Supreme Court Decimated Miranda? (Adam Cohen, Jun. 03, 2010, TIME)

When is the right to remain silent not a right to remain silent? When you have to speak in order to claim it.

That is the bizarre paradox that the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, enshrined in the Constitution on Monday.

Van Thompkins, a criminal suspect, was not interested in talking to the police, and he never affirmatively waived his right to remain silent. But the court ruled that by not saying clearly that he was exercising his right to remain silent, he in fact forfeited the right — and that a one-word answer he gave late in the questioning could be used against him.

The ruling flies in the face of the court's long-standing insistence that a suspect can waive his rights only by affirmatively doing so.

The Court having made up Miranda can do with it as it will.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 4, 2010 5:57 AM