Yeah the DNA one really blew my mind. The lawyer ruling --- welllll yeah crooks may appear to know the law , hahaha...but a lot of them are kinda dumb too, so seems only right that if the bozo asks for a lawyer then until there is one with him the police shouldn't be asking him (or her) any more questions. Odds are the cops are going to be about 300 times smarter than the crook and just doesn't seem right that the cops should have a chance to lie/trick/fool the accused once they've asked for a lawyer.
...I didn't follow Ginsburg's comments last week - I'll have to look it up...


>I agree. Why wouldn't you allow the DNA evidence in? The lawyer ruling doesn't bother me, because ALL the crooks know their rights. Even so, the Supremes are usually full of surprises. How about Ruth "The Babe" Ginsburg's dissent from the bench last week? I think she really needs both meds and counselling....
>
>>
>>...rights? hey we don't need no stikin rights! So now it looks like you could get arrested after an illegal search, ask for a lawyer and get questioned anyway - then if you get nailed for a crime (even if you didn't do it) you can't prove your innocence with DNA and if you get on TV and say one naughty word about it the broadcaster gets busted too. What is happening to my country? geeeze!