Tag Archives: politics

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Vega v. Tekoh

Leave a comment

I’m going to assume you’ve all heard of Miranda rights, correct?

It’s some version of this, depending on the state:

  • You have the right to remain silent.
  • Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
  • You have the right to an attorney.
  • If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

In the United States, the fifth amendment reads as follows:

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Miranda addresses the part about not being compelled to be a witness against yourself. You see, back in 1963, Ernesto Miranda decided to kidnap a women, then put his dick some place it didn’t belong.

Ernesto Miranda

The police picked him up, questioned him for two hours, and eventually obtained a written confession from him. At no point however, did police tell Ernesto that he had a right to a lawyer.

So armed with the confession, Arizona prosecuted his ass—easily winning their case against him.

Miranda eventually obtained a lawyer, however, who decided that there should be a fucking rule that forces police to advise a person of their rights when they’re arrested. Without that, such confessions should be thrown out, as a lawyer may have advised their client to say or do something quite different from what they actually said and did.

Folks, remember four words if you’re ever being questioned by police: “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” That’s it. SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Ask for a lawyer, and say nothing, no matter what the situation is. Period. Always. Every fucking time. Got it?

It’s not that police are bad, but when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Police tend to feel like everyone they’re talking to is a bad actor. So on the off chance you might say something that makes them question your innocence, even when you are innocent, you could find yourself in a bad situation because you failed to SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Anyway, Miranda won at SCOTUS and his confession was thrown out, making his trial a mistrial. Since appellate victories don’t trigger the double jeopardy rule, Arizona tried Miranda again, without the confession, and still won.

So while Miranda changed US Law forever—helping innocent people not get railroaded by aggressive government tactics, that fucker was guilty as sin, and his SCOTUS victory didn’t help him one iota.

Now that we’ve covered Miranda, let’s talk about 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights.

This is a law that says, if government violates your constitutional rights, you can fucking sue them for civil damages.

Miranda and code 1983 are what’s at issue here in this case.

Terence Tekoh was a low-level patient transporter at a Los Angeles hospital.

Terence Tekoh

A young lady was in the hospital, and at one point, under heavy sedation. During that time, she asserted that Tekoh channeled his inner Miranda and stuck a finger in her vagina while she was in the hospital.

The hospital called the fuzz, and Officer Carlos Vega showed up, questioned Tekoh for some time, without ever reading him his Miranda rights, and eventually Tekow wrote an apology for touching the patient inappropriately, which was deemed as a confession.

However, Tekoh was acquitted in his second trial after an initial mistrial.

I’m not sure how someone’s first hand testimony that he molested them wasn’t sufficient for a conviction, but I guess I have to trust the 12 angry men on this one.

Anyway, Tekoh, feeling like he won the lottery after his acquittal decided to double down and sue Officer Vega for violating his constitutional rights.

He argued that he didn’t vountarily talk with Vega, Vega pulled him aside, called him a bunch of racial slurs, threatened to deport his family, and a whole host of other shit, until he confessed.

I won’t bore you with the lower court shit, just know it made it to SCOTUS, and their question was, is Miranda a constitutional right, and if so, can Tekoh sue if he’s not Mirandized?

Let’s go to the arguments:

Roman Martinez

First up: Roman Martinez representing officer Vega.

He opened by arguing Miranda is simply a prophylactic rule designed to protect a person’s fifth amendment rights, and is not a right in and of itself. Just because you’re not mirandized, doesn’t necessarily mean your constitutional rights were violated.

He argues that while Miranda helps protect the fifth amendment rights of the individual, if some moron just blurts out a confession before officers mirandized them, you can’t fairly say the cops violated their constitutional rights and coerced a confession.

He argues that Vega merely took Tekoh’s statement. There was no evidence of coercion, courts and juries didn’t feel Vega did anything wrong, Tekoh just blurted out what he had done.

Justice Thomas was the first to chime in, since he has seniority and all. He asked about a previous case, Dickerson V. United States. So let’s discuss that for a minute.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

In that case, congress has passed 18 U.S. Code § 3501 – Admissibility of confessions. This statute came about after the Miranda case law was established, and was congress’ attempt to legislate away Miranda rights by saying voluntary confessions given before Miranda rights are given, should be admissible in court.

However, SCOTUS told congress to go pound sand with this shit, and the reason why is very important.

I know I go off on tangents—not even gonna apologize for that. Eat my entire ass if you don’t like it—I’m trying to learn y’all something.

The courts job is to interpret laws, regulations, executive orders, the constitution, and other case law. When they do this, it establishes new case law. But not all laws are on the same tier.

In the case of Miranda, they were interpreting the constitution. The case law they created in Miranda therefore is at the constitutional tier. Congress pass statutes, but they are on a lower tier to the constitution. So while congress could create new statutes to invalidate case law regarding a statute, they can’t write a statute invalidating case law over a constitutional principle, otherwise a law would be trumping the constitution. This is Dickerson in a nutshell. SCOTUS ruled in Dickerson, that congress cannot legislate away constitutional case law.

OK, done digressing, back to the case.

Justice Thomas wanted to know if Dickerson destroyed Vega’s case. If SCOTUS ruled that Miranda couldn’t be overruled solely by statute, then doesn’t that make Miranda a constitutional issue, and therefore qualify it as a constitutional violation?

But Counsel Martinez was like, “Nah, man. Miranda protects a constitutional right, but it isn’t a right in and of itself. It’s constitution-adjacent.”

Justice Roberts next asked:

Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice John Roberts

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Mr. Martinez, if I could focus just for a minute on the language of the cause of action here, 1983.

It gives individuals a right against the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. Now, under Miranda, you have a right not to have unwarned confessions admitted into evidence.

You wouldn’t have that right if it weren’t for the Constitution.

So why isn’t that right one secured by the Constitution?

Counsel Martinez responded, “Man, a rule to protect a constitutional right isn’t a constitutional right itself. Nowhere else does this occur, that some stupid-ass procedural rule that protects a constitutional right, all of a sudden becomes a constitutional right in and of itself.”

Justice Kagan was the next to chime in. She could not wrap her head around the argument that Miranda is there to ensure the 5th amendment rights are preserved, and that if a Miranda warning isn’t given, that somehow counsel argues that doesn’t necessarily mean his 5th amendment rights were violated.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan

Counsel Martinez suggested that just because Miranda wasn’t given, could it not be true that cops were having a discussion with him, and he admitted to what he had done in a moment of guilt?

That maybe he wanted to confess, even if he knew he didn’t have to answer their questions?

There’s no reason to assume his confession was coerced at all, without evidence of such. Therefore, his right not to self-incriminate doesn’t have to have been violated.

Justice Sotomayor asked:

Can you tell me why we’re here?

Simple question, but complex reason. She’s asking that Vega not Mirandizing him may have violated his Miranda rights, but it was the prosecutor and courts who chose to admit that confession who royally fucked Tekoh in the ass. So why sue Vega?

Martinez was like, “Fucking Vega lied to the prosecutor and the courts about this bullshit confession he obtained. That’s why we’re going after him. The prosecutor and judge were going on bad info from Vega!”

Next up is Vivek Suri. He’s representing the federal government under Biden, as an amicus, in support of Vega.

His opener was a short banger.

Vivek Suri

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Miranda recognized a constitutional right, but it’s a trial right concerning the exclusion of evidence at a criminal trial.

It isn’t a substantive right to receive the Miranda warnings themselves. A police officer who fails to provide the Miranda warnings accordingly doesn’t himself violate the constitutional right, and he also isn’t legally responsible for any violation that might occur later at the trial.

He’s basically saying, even if the cop fucked up and didn’t mirandize, the prosecutor brought the evidence in, and the judge allowed it. So why is Vega the asshole here?

Justice Thomas jumped in first again, and simply asked, what if the officer lies about what happened during the interrogation?

Vivek is largely arguing 1983 claims are about things that happen outside of trial. But things that happen during the trial, are generally not 1983 claims, such as ineffective counsel, or other poor actions by the judge and prosecutor.

Vivek essentially argues that the remedy for a Miranda claim, is just to throw out the testimony that was given before a baddie was mirandized. It’s not to make it rain cash on the poor sucker.

Last up is Paul Hoffman, representing Mr. Tekoh, AKA Goldfinger.

He’s arguing that Officer Vega’s account is bullshit. Tekoh did not just willingly give up this info. Vega threatened him with deportation and shit, until he confessed.

Vega then lied and suggested that Tekoh, out of the blue, was just like, “Hey man, I’m sorry, I fingered her without her consent. I’m an asshole. Totally my bad.” As if somehow, he didn’t even feel he needed to Mirandize him yet, but then Tekoh just dropped the dime on himself straight away.

Paul Hoffman

Problem for Hoffman, none of the fucking trials actually found, based on the evidence, that Vega did coerce Tekoh. It’s Tekoh’s story, but that’s it.

If Tekoh just blurted out his guilt willy nilly, Vega really didn’t do anything wrong. But Hoffman needs to prove that Vega threatened him with deportation and such, and he just doesn’t have any court findings or testimony to back that shit up.

Think of it like three steps. The use of an unMirandized statement is a violating of the fifth amendment. 1983 let’s you sue for damages if your rights are violated. If Vega lied and said the confession wasn’t coerced when it was in fact coerced, and that confession was admitted into evidence, than Tekoh’s constitutional rights were violated by Vega, and Vega should be rewarded with some 1983 dollars.

If Vega is telling the truth, and Tekoh just sang like a canary because he was feeling guilty, as Vega suggested at trial, then Vega didn’t coerce that confession, he’s just reporting what he heard Tekoh say.

Since Tekoh was exonerated, you might wonder what harm he is claiming. The confession didn’t help the government convict Tekoh. But Tekoh’s claiming that the fact his confession was used as evidence against him, led to him having to endure a trial at all, and therefore he was harmed.

Hoffman is arguing that Tekoh’s life and reputation were harmed by all this, and none of it would have happened, had Vega Mirandized him, instead of interrogating him. And that’s what 1983 is there for—violations just like this.

The opinion, written by Justice Alito, and joined by the other 5 Republican appointees, decided it didn’t give a fuck whether Vega lied or not. That Miranda is not a constitutional right, it is a prophylactic rule that merely protects a constitutional right. The remedy for a Miranda violation is the evidence not being allowed into trial. It isn’t 1983 dolla dolla bills y’all.

Essentially, he’s saying that because it’s possible Tekoh just blurted out his confession, and Vega was in earshot of it, which would be admissible in court, that this proves that not mirandizing someone isn’t always a fifth amendment violation.

He wrote:

A violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution, and therefore such a violation does not constitute “the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution” which is necessary to secure a 42 U. S. C. §1983 claim.

So Tekoh can go fuck himself, instead of his patients—he’s lucky he was acquitted.

Justice Kagan wrote the dissent. I’ll summarize it this way. “If Miranda is required to protect someone’s 5th amendment rights, and a Miranda warning isn’t given, someone’s fifth amendment rights were fucking violated. Alito, respectfully, you’re a crusty old senile fuck, and you should retire.”

Libertarianism

Trump Cannot Have A Good Solution If He Doesn’t Understand The Problem.

Leave a comment

One of Trump’s most contentious policy issues has been tariffs. His argument is that the United States has trade deficits with many other nations, and that this is inherently problematic.

Here’s the issue: it’s not a problem. It never has been.

Think about this: you have a trade deficit with your grocery store. You probably buy from them all the time, but they don’t buy anything from you. Is that a problem? Of course not.

The United States is the largest economy in the world. We have trade deficits with other nations because we have more money to buy their goods than they have to buy ours. Additionally, their goods are often cheaper, while ours are relatively expensive. This is basic capitalism—money flows to those producing the best products at the best prices.

As a result, citizens of other countries—who generally have less disposable income than Americans—are unlikely to purchase U.S. goods even if they wanted to.

Donald Trump (R)
President Donald Trump

But let’s discuss problem-solving more broadly.

Imagine I gave you a math problem: 2+2. If you’re unfamiliar with math, you might think the problem is 2-2. If you don’t understand the addition symbol, you’ll never get the right answer. Accurately identifying the problem is essential for finding effective solutions—this is where Trump fails spectacularly.

Once we understand that the reason we don’t export more is that U.S. goods are too expensive compared to those from other countries—and recognize that Trump’s policies haven’t addressed this—it becomes clear that he isn’t solving the problem. In fact, he is likely making it worse, which is why so many economists are predicting a recession.

As president, Trump can influence U.S. policy but has limited power over other nations, aside from imposing tariffs.

This reflects a larger issue: a lack of self-awareness on a national scale. Trump and his supporters fail to consider that the problem may lie within the United States itself. They assume that American manufacturing is flawless and that other countries are taking advantage of us. This perspective is fundamentally flawed.

Global markets are capitalism at the highest level. Other countries are competing and winning because the U.S. is repeating past mistakes—allowing prices to rise due to poor policies, thereby pricing ourselves out of the market. People aren’t willing to pay Mercedes-Benz prices for Volkswagen-quality goods.

If Trump understood that the real issue is the cost of American goods, he would focus on reducing those costs. He could:

  1. Tighten regulations on labor unions to prevent the artificial inflation of labor costs.
  2. Collaborate with Congress to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate, which remains similar to other developed countries. Or better yet, eliminate it altogether. If we want to compete, let’s compete!
  3. Address the restrictive regulatory environment by working with Congress to repeal unnecessary statutes that increase production costs.
  4. Instruct his administration to repeal regulations that add cost without providing clear value.
U.S. Congress

These measures could significantly reduce the cost of U.S. goods. It’s worth noting that generally, no company wants to manufacture outside their home country. The language barriers, compliance costs, shipping challenges, etc., are all very problematic and costly. So improving the above points at home are what would encourage more investment in U.S. production—not just raising the cost of foreign goods.

Trump’s approach is to increase the cost of imported goods to make them comparable in price to U.S. products, under the assumption that this will boost domestic spending and investment. It won’t. Americans generally prefer U.S. goods but often can’t afford them. Raising the cost of alternatives won’t change that.

Companies won’t invest in the U.S. until we fix the issues that make it expensive to do business here, either.

In my experience working for an American professional tool company, we offered both domestically produced and imported tools. The U.S.-made sets often cost around $500+, while comparable sets from Taiwan were priced between $150 and $200. Customers wanted the American-made sets, but most couldn’t afford them and bought the imported ones. If the cheaper options disappear, customers simply won’t buy anything.

It’s also important to note that imported goods support the U.S. economy because they are sold by American vendors. If affordable imports disappear, stores like Walmart will struggle to stock affordable products, leaving low-income families with fewer options.

The global economy naturally directs production to those who can make the best products at the lowest prices. This isn’t about tariffs—it’s about culture, resources, and work ethic.

Work ethic plays a role, as many young Americans are increasingly reluctant to take on labor-intensive, low-paying jobs. We’ve instilled the belief that everyone must go to college, and that low-skilled jobs are beneath them. As a result, fewer people are willing to work in factories.

Trump’s failure to address these fundamental issues has left the economy struggling. Economists are predicting a recession, inflation remains high, and Trump’s focus on tariffs is not addressing the root causes. Meanwhile, his conflicts with the courts and disregard for the Constitution are eroding support among independent voters.

The hope is that as more Americans, including his supporters, recognize the flaws in his approach, Trump will feel compelled to change course. His ego needs to be fed, and as more Americans turn against him, it’s the surest way to get him to embrace change in himself. For the sake of the country, I certainly hope we have a serious culture shift, soon.

Libertarianism

Trump Suggests He Doesn’t Understand The Constitution

Leave a comment

When I think Trump is corrupt or willfully doing the wrong thing, I’m pretty harsh in my criticisms of him on “the socials.”

If he’s answering honestly here in this PBS video, then this is not so much me bashing him, as it is me being concerned about him being our president.

To give context, he is asked about the Supreme Court ordering him to effectuate the return of suspected gang member, and known illegal immigrant Kilmar Garcia (Read about this story here, for the unfamiliar), and he replies by saying that the people elected him to deport these folks, and the courts are holding him back from doing it.

So then she asks, “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as president?”

He responds, “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me. And they are going to, obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said, is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a very different interpretation.”

It should be concerning he doesn’t understand the constitution, and a court order, at such a basic level, when he’s encountered so many of them at this point.

Kilmar Arbrego Garcia

If you follow Trump and his legal issues, as covered by legal scholars and analysts alike, you’ll know he has a history of losing good lawyers.

A good podcast on this subject is called Serious Trouble, hosted by former federal prosecutor, Ken White. If you’re interested in learning law as it pertains to current issues, it’s really hard to think of a better podcast, and it’s largely apolitical.

It is often very critical of Trump, but don’t mistake this as being partisan. It’s quite possible to be a Republican ideologically, and still not like Trump, or to have apolitical reasons for disliking him.

I don’t think Ken White is a Republican, but the point is, he rarely delves into political opinions or questions, just legal analysis. So be sure to check your biases when listening, and just learn.

Former prosecutor Ken White

Anyway, on the issue of Trump losing good lawyers, an analogy would be the support of capitalism many give, and how it works.

If someone were a horrid employer, they’ll lose good employees, either because the employees won’t want to work for them, or the employer will ask them to do things that they know are wrong or immoral. The employee will, of course, refuse to do these directives, which then prompts the bad employer to fire them because they think the employee is being insubordinate, when the reality is the employer is the one out of line asking them to do those things in the first place.

This is precisely the scenario people describe when it comes to Trump and his lawyer troubles. His lawyers either fire Trump as a client, or he fires them, often after they refuse to do something they consider illegal, which could get them disbarred or worse. So Trump ends up with mediocre and ethically challenged lawyers as a result. Not to mention, he seems to have a penchant for hiring lawyers who are subjectively attractive females, for what I assume are not entirely because of their skills at lawyering.

Christina Bobb (Left), Lindsey Halligan (Center), Alina Habba (Right)

By all accounts, he’s been surrounded most of his life by employees or family members, who’ve all enabled him. It’s led him to believe he’s smarter than he is, because he doesn’t have anyone close to him to tell him he’s wrong or out of line growing up.

Penn Jillette talked about this on his podcast, Penn’s Sunday School. Penn was asked to do an interview for a book about Trump. Out of curiosity, he asked the writer, “What do his friends say about him?”

The writer responded that he hadn’t really been able to find any friends to interview. Just employees, and family members.

Penn Jillette

As a result of this sheltered and unchallenged life, it stands to reason he was turned into an entitled jerk who thinks he’s always right, and thinks anyone disagreeing with him is his enemy.

History is littered with stories like this of boy kings, for instance, who would have servants killed for just making eye contact with them.

As much as I find Trump offputting and reprehensible, I do find it sad that this is how he was brought up and how he turned out.

Maybe he was born a sociopath and was always going to be the basic person he is. But maybe he was raised so poorly, that it made him the bad person he is, and things could have been so much better for him with a better upbringing.

Either way, the idea that he doesn’t understand the Constitution in such a simple sense, is very concerning, when it’s his job to uphold it. With some of his other off-the-wall ideas, like changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, reopening Alcatraz, or his tumultuous application of tariffs, I think it’s fair to ponder the idea that he’s starting to suffer dementia, like Biden and Reagan before him.

He’s Biden’s age—after all—and older than Reagan was during his presidency, so it’s not a crazy notion.

Either way, I think for the sake of our nation, it’s time for Republicans to move on from Trump as soon as possible before more bad things happen, either through corruption, arrogance, ignorance, or senility.