Disclaimer: I have no legal credentials; I am neither a lawyer nor do I have any specialized legal knowledge.
The Supreme Court has decided that the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination must be verbally 'invoked' to apply. Apparently, the body language of a witness during questioning was used against him.
-Does this mean other Constitutionally protected rights must be verbally affirmed to be properly invoked?… I have freedom of speech so I can claim Obama is a socialist…; I have a right to bear arms so I can shoot anyone at Sandy Hook School…; I have the right to vote so I will vote…
-This further divides U.S. residents into those with the wherewithal and knowledge to be fully informed of all the implications of any interaction with any level of the judicial system and those without: those with and without knowledge: those with and without financial means.
-As it stands, the police often have difficulty interacting with select segments of the public, especially minorities. This ruling will only reinforce the unease, increase distrust and create more barriers to attempts to bridge this divide.
---
The court also decided this month that only persons with ““tangible employment actions” like hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or reassigning employees to significantly different responsibilities” can be held legally responsible for discriminatory behavior (see here).
-What does this mean for subcontractors whose evaluation depend on contractor feedback? Does this mean a contractor can mistreat a subcontractor (for example, many housekeeping staff) under threat of a poor evaluation or complaint?
-What about alternate chains of command? For example, if a Justice of the Supreme Court were to harass a Supreme Court police officer (of course this would never happen)? The Justice is not in supervisorial position relative to the officer… Does that mean a federal employee is exempt from such behavior towards any federal employee over which they have no direct supervisorial authority?
---
With these and another recent court decision, it is as though the Supreme Court were presiding over the specific case under challenge and not the legal precedent in question. If so, the Supreme Court Justices need to remember they function at a meta level with regards to the law and U.S. Constitution and they have taken an oath to that effect.
---
To expand on the Supreme Court…
The notion of 'originalist' has been used by conservative Justices to explain their judicial philosophy…
The Constitution was designed to be a 'living document' in so far as it could be altered via the amendment process. The 'originators' also endowed the Supreme Court with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. To claim that 'original intent' stands if the laws have not been modernize is a dereliction of the oath of office of the Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment