Since, by the grace of as much fooling around with calendars as we can do, we are celebrating the birthday of President Lincoln (hitherto celebrated on February 12) and of President Washington (February 11 under the calendar "we"---Britain---were still using after almost the rest of the western world had abandoned it, and February 22 after we finally gave in), today would be a good day to recall just what it is that makes our Anglo-American system of justice so just. Former Vice Presidents are welcome to play.


Q. Who wrote the opinion in 2000 which observed that

"Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture"

?

A. known leftist, Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a case called Dickerson v. United States.


Q. Which of his predecessors noted in a 1980 case that

"The meaning of Miranda has become reasonably clear and law enforcement practices have adjusted to its strictures; I would neither overrule Miranda, disparage it, nor extend it at this late date"

?

A. Friend of terrorists, Chief Justice Warren Burger, concurring in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 304 (1980).

More from Chief Justice Rehnquist's pre-9/11 description of why we don't allow the use of coerced statements in evidence against someone charged with a crime:

"the courts of England and then the United States recognized that coerced confessions are inherently untrustworthy. See, e.g., King v. Rudd, 1 Leach 115, 117-118, 122-123, 168 Eng. Rep. 160, 161, 164 (K. B. 1783) (Lord Mansfield, C. J.) (stating that the English courts excluded confessions obtained by threats and promises); King v. Warickshall, 1 Leach 262, 263-264, 168 Eng. Rep. 234, 235 (K. B. 1783) ("A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt ... but a confession forced from the mind by the flattery of hope, or by the torture of fear, comes in so questionable a shape ... that no credit ought to be given to it; and therefore it is rejected"); King v. Parratt, 4 Car. & P. 570, 172 Eng. Rep. 829 (N. P. 1831); Queen v. Garner, 1 Den. 329, 169 Eng. Rep. 267 (Ct. Crim. App. 1848); Queen v. Baldry, 2 Den. 430, 169 Eng. Rep. 568 (Ct. Crim. App. 1852); Hopt v. Territory of Utah, 110 U. S. 574 (1884); Pierce v. United States, 160 U. S. 355, 357 (1896). Over time, our cases recognized two constitutional bases for the requirement that a confession be voluntary to be admitted into evidence: the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 542 (1897) (stating that the voluntariness test "is controlled by that portion of the Fifth Amendment ... commanding that no person `shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ' "); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936) (reversing a criminal conviction under the Due Process Clause because it was based on a confession obtained by physical coercion).

While Bram was decided before Brown and its progeny, for the middle third of the 20th century our cases based the rule against admitting coerced confessions primarily, if not exclusively, on notions of due process."

According to the former Vice President, we can no longer afford this kind of due process and need to just get what we can get whatever way we can get it, whether it be reliable or not. When Chief Justice Rehnquist thinks you are off your right wing rocker, you have really broken new ground.

(and, by the way, people who say that you don't need a defendant's confession or statement to prove a crime---particularly one observed, so they think, by other passengers, have never tried a criminal case.)