Most Americans Can’t Name the Supreme Court Justices!

A recent poll by FineLaw.com, a part of the respected company, Thompson Reuters, found recently that two thirds of Americans can’t even name one person on the United States Supreme Court. All that fighting to pick Supreme Court justices, senate confirmation hearings, television coverage, liberals and conservatives both warning of dire consequences…

So what?

Does it make much difference? After all, most people can’t name their senators, congress people, mayors, etc. Does it make much difference?

Granted, the Supremes do get the fun of playing referee and often make decisions that have repercussions for years–the Roe v. Wade decision from the 1970’s, for instance. But when you think of all the things most of us have to keep track of every day, how can anyone keep track of some old dudes? (And women)

It’s interesting to note that for most of our American history, the Supreme Court was relatively quiet. They viewed their role narrowly and seldom upset the apple cart. If Congress passed a law, the Supremes were content to let it stand.

When Franklin Roosevelt passed immense amounts of legislation creating new agencies and government programs, the Court peeked out of the stuffy courtroom and struck down much of his legislation. Even then, who remembers the people who made those decisions?

Does it make any difference that most Americans probably don’t care who sits on the court?

But you say, what about the Senate confirmation hearings and the President’s power to place conservative or liberal judges on the bench? Don’t we all get upset over those appointments?

I’m not so sure we do. The media get upset, small groups of politically active people do, but do the majority of Americans get upset? I don’t think so. How could they when they’ve forgotten the controversial names that have reached the Supreme Court?

Besides, once a president appoints, it’s a life-time appointment. A good example of how justices don’t “follow the rules,” was Chief Justice Earl Warren. He began his political career as the county prosecutor in Oakland, California. He went on to become governor of California where he supported Dwight Eisenhower for president in 1952. As a reward for that support, Eisenhower appointed Warren to the Supremes, confident that Warren, a former prosecutor, would vote as a solid conservative.

Warren went on to become one of the most active, ambitious, and liberal justices in modern history. Eisenhower was quoted as saying, “Worst damn decision of my presidency,” about his selection.

Do you know any of the names of the justices? Are there any women on the court? Blacks? Asians? Do you know their religious backgrounds? Is it important to you day-to-day? Should it be?

Let me know how many justices you can name? I dare you to try!!

The post Who Are Those Guys? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

In the recent Thompkins case, the Supreme Court ruled that unless a citizen who’s under arrest as a criminal suspect actually says, “I don’t want to talk or I won’t talk without a lawyer,” police can continue questioning him for a long time..until they get a confession.

Suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, after he was read his Miranda rights–which say a person may remain silent and that if he wants, he may have a lawyer present before answering any questions–didn’t say anything. Police continued to question him for three hours. Finally, in a question about God, Thompkins confessed to a murder.

In my experience as a prosecutor and defense lawyer, even the juveniles know enough, by now, to tell police they don’t want to talk. At least in Minnesota, the police respect the law and quit questioning.

The Supremes now say that unless the suspect specifically says he doesn’t want to talk anymore, the police can wear him down and keep questioning for as long as they all have the patience.

Is this right?

The decision was close, 5-4, with the dissent saying the decision “turns Miranda upside down,” because now a person, instead of remaining silent, has to…well, talk. And say they don’t want to talk!

Does this sound like a bunch of “out-of -touch” judges? Only a lawyer could think up this kind of stuff.

The Miranda decision was always a balancing act. The Supremes tried to balance the need of the community/police to get information against the right of citizens to not implicate themselves in crimes. (A basic Constitutional right, after all) If the suspect clammed-up, it could frustrate an investigation but protected our basic rights as citizens.

In my experience, the Miranda right to remain silent is seldom a deterrent to good police work. Almost always, there is more evidence in a case that points to the suspect. Sure, a confession is always helpful to the prosecution! But many times, the police have done enough to obtain evidence to convict without a confession.

In the few instances where there aren’t any other witnesses and a confession would solve the case, the police and prosecutors are hampered without it.

I’ve found that many suspects confess anyway. Even after they’ve been given their Miranda warnings, they still love to talk. Good cops are trained to take advantage of this need for most criminals to “spill their guts.” I remember working with a Minneapolis cop we called, “Father O’Brien.” His real name was Dick O’Brien (Unfortunately he died much too young) and he was an expert at getting confessions from suspects. Even after he’d given a Miranda warning, he’d ask if the suspect wanted to talk about other things–they usually did. Sure enough, Father O’Brien would work the conversation around to the crime, remind the suspect of his right to remain silent, and the suspect would confess to everything!

What do you think of the Court’s ruling? Do police have too much power? Not enough?

The post Is Miranda Dead? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

What’s it about and is this something unusual for the Supremes?

Overturning precedent, the ruling treats corporations as individuals and therefore, gives them a freedom of speech that is normally given only to people in the Constitution. Campaign contributions–freedom of speech–now means that any corporation, including foreign ones incorporated here, can give unlimited amounts of cash to candidates.

Some people worry that with deep pockets , a wealthy corporation could run their “own candidate,” favorable to them and could win easily.

For years, conservatives have complained that liberal justices don’t follow precedent and are “activists,” making up law as they want in order to fit pre-determined outcomes. As you can imagine, the liberals are yelling about the Republican-appointed majority on the present court being activist but many conservatives are upset also.

Did the Supreme Court do something they’ve never done before?

No. This is nothing new.

The ruling that is guaranteed to light fires under many Americans is, of course, Roe v. Wade. The court “found” the right to privacy in the Constitution even though the document never mentions any such right.

Has the court become more “activist”–as the conservaties accuse–in the last few decades?

Not really.

The first “activist” justice was the first Chief Justice, John Marshall. In 1803, the Supreme Court was faced with a minor matter that could’ve been decided easily and with few repurcussions. Even worse than the campaign financing decision recently, Marshall went completely out of his way to create a new law.

The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to review legislation passed by Congress and determine if legislation is “constitutional” or not. Marshall made that up out of thin air! Today, after hundreds of years of the court rulings on “judicial review,” we’ve come to accept this activist role of the court and most Americans think it’s a power the Supremes have always had to exercise.

Why do we allow this?

Marshall’s decision was controversial but finally accepted, giving the Supremes the power to review new laws. Americans accept this power because we need some institution to put an end to disputes and to make final decisions about controversial laws. Here are a few examples:

During President Franklin Rooselvelt’s administration, he helped pass several laws creating new government agencies. His political opponents were furious. The Surpeme Court overturned much of this legislation, saying it was unconstitutional.

In the critical decision of Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Surpeme court stuck its nose in the ballot counting problem from Florida and made a decison that gave the election to George Bush. The Court didn’t have much business involving itself, but the country accepted their opinion as a way to end the drawn-out disputed vote count and put one of the two guys in office as president.

Do you have any thoughts about this? Should the Surpemes even have the power to rule legislation unconstitutional??

See me webite at www.colintnelson.com

The post Obama Blasts the Supremes appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.