Supreme Court: Suspects Can Be Interrogated Without a Lawyer.

Guys, this is kind of a big deal. I know everyone was distracted today with the new justice, California, and North Korea, but pay attention! This is serious shit.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers … The court’s conservatives overturned that opinion, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying “it was poorly reasoned.” … The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He and Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move Stevens read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

But this is the kicker:

The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

(The original case was in Louisiana, of course.) What is troubling is that this is a situation in which the ALLEGED perpetrator is at a serious disadvantage - and under serious “pressure” from cops to admit to something. Obviously defendants are usually poor, uneducated, and unaware of their rights, which is why they’re guaranteed a lawyer. Why take away the requirement of their lawyer’s presence, if the cops are supposedly doing everything by the book? It is very scary when rights are taken away…..What’s going on, Obama? -M