Much has been made about how Judge Roberts's judicial philosophy and how his philosphy can be applied to
Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy. To a lesser extent, Kossacks and the press have focused on how a Justice Roberts would rule in cases of federalism, which involves a vast array of issues ranging from whether rape victims can sue their attackers in federal court (see
U.S. v. Morrison (2000)) to whether Congress can make laws requiring states to provide public facilities ensuring court access to the disabled (see
Tennessee v. Lane(2004)). But missing in all this discussion has been a landmark case of the Warren Court:
Miranda v. Arizona.
Miranda, as many people know, established the right for criminal suspects to be notified by the police of their rights as citizens:
- the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions and that anything said will be used against the suspect in the court of law
- the right to an attorney
- the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and the right to have an attorney present during questioning
Miranda rights are fundamental values to the decency and dignity that Americans have cherished. It is unacceptable that even one Supreme Court justice would vote to overturn
Miranda. Unfortunately, we currently have two justices -- Justice Scalia, who wrote the dissenting opinion, and Justice Thomas, who joined Justice Scalia -- who voted to overturn
Miranda in
Dickerson v. United States (2000). Even Chief Justice Rehnquist, who disagreed vehemently with the original
Miranda ruling, according to NPR journalist Nina Totenberg (on
Inside Washington), used
stare decisis, and wrote the majority opinion upholding
Miranda in 2000.
At the end of the 2000 Supreme Court term, John Roberts told a Baltimore Sun reporter, "The conventional wisdom is that this is a conservative court. We have to take that more skeptically. On the three issues the public was most interested in - school prayer, abortion and Miranda rights - the conservatives lost on all." During the Judiciary confirmation hearings, Judge Roberts must be asked what he meant by this statement.
More importantly, Judge Roberts must be asked if he thinks Miranda was correctly decided. If Judge Roberts responds that Miranda was incorrectly decided, he must be asked if Dickerson was correctly decided. If Judge Roberts cannot say emphatically that Dickerson was correctly decided, it probably means that he would overturn Miranda, and such a nominee cannot serve on the Supreme Court. It's that simple.