×
Today, the Supreme Court upheld, 7-2, a conviction that had been thrown out by the Florida Supreme Court. The latter held that the warnings given to the suspect did not comply with Miranda requirements because the police did not make clear that the suspect had the right to a lawyer during (as well as prior to) an interrogation. The case will probably be fairly minor in its impact but does demonstrate a couple of important things about the current Court:
- The Lack of a "Liberal" Wing
While the current Court has four staunch conservative votes, it doesn't really have any liberals of the Brennan/Marshall/Douglas variety, especially on civil liberties issues. John Paul Stevens, a Rockefeller Republican who is the closest thing the Court has to a consistent civil liberties liberal, wrote the dissenting opinion (joined on the merits, somewhat surprisingly, by Breyer, who definitely isn't a consistent civil libertarian). Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually wrote the majority opinion. Perhaps the most important implication of this case is the fact that Ginsburg's opinion was joined by Sonia Sotomayor, providing at least one data point in favor of the common perception that the Court's newest justice will also be a civil liberties moderate. - Nobody Cares About Federalism
One interesting aspect of the case is that the Florida court held that the interrogation violated the Florida Constitution as well as the federal Constitution. If this is true -- and the argument was very plausible -- then the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the case. Stevens, however, is the only one who would have voted to deny jurisdiction. As usual, then, the alleged conservative commitment to "federalism" did not survive an outcome on the merits inconsistent with conservative values. This is a truth, of course, that goes well beyond the Court.
