miranda warning that many know by heart. you have the right to remain silent, maybe enshrined in tv shows and films, but this week s supreme court decision means its civil rights protections will be significantly reduced. the 6 to 3 decision essentially concluded that failing to mirandize or give someone their miranda warning does not allow a person to suit long forsman for federal civil rights violation of the fifth amendment protection against compelled self incrimination. back with me as michael waltman. michael, what does this decision mean? it was the forgotten decision this week, but i think it s pretty significant. what about you? it is significant. they re exactly right that this is one of those cherished things that we as americans take for granted from cop shows,
of us took for granted over the last half century. my reading of this, i walked away thinking yeah, you have the right to remain silent and counsel, but you don t have the right to know that. in other words, they don t have to tell you that anymore. does that mean this decision makes it easier for police to obtain that coursed confession that concerns a lot of folks in police custody? well, in theory, they still can t use it a try, but the police officer who maybe coercing does not have to worry as much themself that they will be held accountable. if you don t have accountability, then the right is not terribly meaningful. we as a society, two years after the george floyd murder, we re still looking for ways to make sure that we can have public safety and accountable policing and fairness. this is not a newfangled thing. this is a basic bedrock protection that has not been shipped away. has this given cover to police in that regard? as you mentioned, the officers
dissected by linda greenhouse, the new york times reporter for the decades. she notes in a new piece this is the first time the court rescinded an individual right, and left it up to the states, something that used to be, according to the court, protected by the constitution. now, again, i m keeping it as blunt and clear as possible. these things are linked. the fact that the court is being purr sooefed by everyone as making a sudden change as soon as it got trump appointees on it who have a view of abortion, that perception against what alito is claiming, that he needs people to believe something else, he needs everyone to believe this decision was wrong from the start. as greenhouse points out, that will also mean however, so many past republican appointed justices who backed roe have also been wrong from the start.
rebukes already. take usa today s front page which raises the issue from an american view of, wow, once you do this, this fast with a bunch of new trump appointees, the court s legitimacy is, quote, in question after this ruling. the nationwide protests we re living through right now are not logging a generalized disagreement with the outcome. much of this is tapping into what is now a prevailing view, that this decision came out because new justices joined the court, and they personally oppose abortion. now, let me be clear if the sentence i just said sounds obvious, trump put people on the court, voted to reverse the precedent because they oppose it, it if it sounds obvious, remember, that is what they currently deny. the court s legitimacy requires that it never does that, that it doesn t just reverse what is
women in this country, more than half of our population, was done by a majority of men. there indeed is nuance, but the writing is very clear that there is an intention here to create a permanent underclass of women, and i am here and would love to continue this conversation as we speak directly to the women that justice alito called out in his decision, where he said, it s not as if women don t have electoral or political power, and i think it is time that women across this country show these justices the kind of country that they want their daughters and sons to inherit. and frankly, the kind of country that we deserve. yeah, that s interesting. you re citing some of the selective reference to political turnout in the opinion, but you re also saying, okay, bring it. emily, this brings us back to the juris presumption of