Insidiously and with the stealth of a slow moving cancer, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court yesterday infected another freedom: our Miranda rights.
A suspect now can't shut up cops interrogating him or her unless he knows enough to tell them that he:
1) wants to remain silent, and
2) wants the presence of an attorney when questioned.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined in the 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Our new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said our rights of protection from police abuse "turns Miranda upside down." She was joined in her dissent by John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
good medicine for what ails US.
I'm thinking that both career criminals and white collar thugs with high paid attorneys won't have a problem with this "modification" to Miranda.
It's the underclass, working class, people of color, people who don't understand English well, and the average citizen in the right place at the wrong time - like driving while black - who concern me.
Add in the political dissenters, because when SHTF from converging problems by this fall from the growing economic depression, war expansion, and the Gulf Oil Gusher taking us down further, and I think
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for locking up serious criminals, but it is so incredibly easy to get in trouble with the law even when you haven't done anything or done much, especially the young between 14 and 25 years old. Readers, you know of lots of cases, so spit out your examples if you wish.
But really, what's up with the sickness in the Highest Court of the Land?
Only a few months ago, the Fatal Five gave Constitutional rights of "personhood" to multinational corporations.
This shit is crazy. Those are entities rich beyond our wildest dreams and they never friggin' die. They can bankroll and buy political candidates with unlimited money, whom they're sure will work in their interests.
What I wonder now is will the nominee, Elena Kagan, if appointed, be part of the cure for what ails us, or speed up the disease to freedom? After reading this, you'll see it's practically a rhetorical question.
Highlight from the Huffington Post: "On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court finally dealt Miranda a death blow. Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, was complicit in Miranda's demise.
"So what was Kagan's role? As Solicitor General, she filed a brief for the US as a friend of the Court. The US was not a party in the case since [the defendent] had been convicted in state court, and it was the State of Michigan that challenged the lower court's ruling. Kagan did not have to enter the fray and take a position, but she decided to do so...
"Superficially, if Kagan had already replaced Stevens on the Court, the outcome [on Miranda] would not have changed. At most, the decision would have been 6-3 and not 5-4. But Kagan's arguments... show no understanding of modern police interrogation tactics or that suspects -- who are in a position of powerlessness during an interrogation -- may have difficulty asserting their rights or using precise language to do so."
Barack was a Chicago civil rights attorney before he turned into a politician. He did the right thing for We The People when he selected Sotomayor. However, he'll be undoing this good if Kagan goes through. The Supreme Court will then be stacked 6 to 3: six conservatives to three liberals.
Our President, of all people, knows better. Here is Mr. Change himself, with the golden opportunity to stack the court with a 4-5 ratio, but this five being those who will keep us safe from harm by multinationals and bad laws, and he fucks it up.
As a former die-hard Obama lover, I've concluded this was not a "misstep". It's become a pattern of his pandering to immoral and immortal vampiric "corporate personhoods" - ones that are screwing us every minute of every day, from sea to shining sea with the oil-drenched Gulf in between and Alaska getting raped to the north, and profiteering from endless wars.
I hope he reconsiders Kagan after Miranda's murder. I ain't holding my breath, though, and I sit here wondering what other death blows to our freedoms and the planet will occur in the upcoming months and years.
Preach it, Kit! This Miranda thing and Kagan is an insult to black and brown and poor whites. Me and my lady campaigned for Barack, but our honeymoon with him is over and the marriage has begun.
ReplyDeleteI'm sad about this. Mostly because I know the average American has no idea about this.
ReplyDeleteI mean, what's the DAMN point of miranda rights if I have to assert them? I don't walk around reminding people that I have a right to equal treatment (although, now that I've said that, maybe I should).
::sigh:: What's going on in this country, Jesus?
Fecking Hell.
ReplyDeleteNow I have a better idea why Haliburton built those huge new camps.
"...immoral and immortal vampiric "corporate personhoods"...that are screwing us every minute of every day, from sea to shining sea with the oil-drenched Gulf in between and Alaska getting raped to the north, and profiteering from endless wars." Sadly, aptly put.
ReplyDeleteKIT
ReplyDeleteThis is off topic, but I thought you would enjoy this link given that post you did a while back about how to deal with foreclosure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/business/01nopay.html?src=me&ref=homepage
Big Man, Heh-heh. So, you're feeling differently from your comment in my July 2008 post?
ReplyDeleteTLS, Thank you.
Macon, Halliburton's fingers do appear to be in every pie. It kind of bums me out that my worse case scenario posts based on trends I saw, like this one are babystepping their way to a new reality.
A Smith, You asked, what is going on in this country. I have two quick answers: A corporatocracy, combined with a new White Nationalist Movement.
Mr. Political Entomologist, *chuckling* Well put: "the honeymoon is over and our marriage with Barack has begun.
I'm not insensitive to the all the stress Obama has on him from the bitches who've been running shit their way for decades, along with the haters, but he's got some power that if unused, will be like self inflicted political castration. Can't no marriage work like that.
KIT, I totally agree with you. Kagen is an undercover conservative and this Miranda ruling is a tragedy.
ReplyDeleteJust being silent isn't enough? We have to invoke our right to remain silent? WTF?! That doesn't even make sense.
I think we need a higher court than the Supreme Court to correct its rulings.
I just left a very long detailed response and blogger ate it. Anyhoo, I think the Supreme Court got it right on this one. Their decision doesn't erode any more of the rights that we're afforded by the constitution on this one.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line: Dude should have shut the fuck up and refused to speak without an attorney present. He didn't do any of that at any time during his 3hr and 45min interrogation. And all he said was one word that was used against him to produce a murder conviction.
The moral of the story: Stop talking to cops, period! You are not required by law to answer any questions asked, and there's this thing called the 5th amendment that protects us as individuals. Remember, ANYTHING YOU SAY (to the police) CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW.
@Val: Yes you have to invoke your right; this is nothing new; and decision made yesterday doesn't change anything.
ReplyDeleteRippa, Sorry Blogger ate your comment; it does that once in awhile. Yours must be tasty, lol.
ReplyDeleteGood advice. The thing is, a lot of people don't know the word "Miranda". I can picture the bad apples harassing someone until the use the magic word.
Val, Kagan comes across to me as a nice lady. Really. Just that bit of history filing as a "friend of the court" and out of her jurisdiction seems weird. Don't need anymore conservatives in the court; 6 to 3 and we'd never recover.
@Rippa
ReplyDeleteBut it does change things. Previously if you just kept quiet that was all you needed to do. Being quiet was the same as invoking your right to remain silent. So even if the police kept questioning you at a certain point anything they found out from that questioning was off limits. Now unless you say you are invoking your right they can keep questioning you and anything gleaned from said questioning can be used against you.
Just wait till the media catch up and stealthily imply that there is no right to remain silent.
ReplyDeleteIt is happening in Germany in "reality"-television regularily.
They do a show about people working for the unemployment-agency, out to check on the claims people have. They appear at peoples doors, tell them they have to some in, are let in by the poeple shown on TV, of course. NO hint to one tiny fact: without agreeing on a date, they have no right to do that. A Date has to be AGREED on, by both sides, and the person that is beign checked has a right to have witnesses, see all notes made suring the visit, and so on.
The rights exist, but people are, seemingly on purpose, kept in the dark about them. People from unemployment-agency suddenly are at your door? Well, let them in, that's perfectly normal. You are arrested by the police, and they keep asking you, putting pressure on you and all that shit? Hey, the most normal thing in the world.
Very very gradually, citezens rights are being eroded, ba taking some, and by keepoing people ignorant about the rest.
The only thing that helps is spreading the word about rights we have, and right that are being taken from us, no matter where you live.
excellent and informative post,Kit. I believe you hit the nail on the head when you wrote career criminals and white collar thugs will have no problem with this,but as you said it's the underclass, working stiffs, people caught DWB/I/M who are scared or intimidated-or trusting-who will get screwed. Yeah most of us know not to trust the cops, but they are trained and expert at manipulation.
ReplyDeleteWhat is very telling, is the right-wingers who are so concerned with the constitution, but only on their terms. They don't mind these types of rights being taken away since cops generally don't mess with them. Just don't touch their guns.
Don't worry KIT, they all die eventually. Let's just hope that when these conservatives die, that there is a Democratic president in office to appoint some well meaning liberals to the court.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with RiPPa, this changes nothing! In fact, I believe it was meant to give a better definition of the law.
ReplyDeleteAs an ex-felon that has been around thousands of "criminals", I've noticed those who will run their mouths, will do that regardless of their miranda rights.
Besides, driving while black will seldom if ever fall under this law. If a police officer stops a person and asks them a few questions, what are they going to say, I want my lawyer? Think about it. If you've done something wrong, shut the hell up, if not, then tell the man you're coming from your ladies house.
I do however see the criticism of the law as another weak attempt to point fingers at Obama.
If Obama is not in office than who?
I spent a lifetime in law enforcement and at one specialized in interrogation. I cannot see how this latest decision will modify Miranda in any way. I have interviewed hundreds of people from all walks of life. The vast majority, over 80%, refuse council and just can't wait to talk. I don't see anything changing by the fact that they all of a sudden suffer from diarrhea of the mouth. It happened all the time without prompting by interviewing officers. Thanks for a good post.
ReplyDeleteMike, How can it be a good post if you and a couple others disagree that the change in the law is significant? Maybe it's the part of Barack's choice of a suspect conservative Supreme Court Justice that that you agree with?
ReplyDeleteCarey, I asked Rippa to do a post on his perspective since he's more familiar with Miranda as it has been operating in the real world before the change. Perhaps as Mike said, it makes no difference except on paper.
I thought his choice for justice was exactly what the liberals needed. That means both choices. I think it is a little early to be judging people. Perhaps we should step back and let them do what they do before we call them bad...:-) :-)
ReplyDeleteP.S. It is a good post because it is carefully researched. Simply because I do not agree with the opinion of the writer does not make it a "bad" post. I would have liked to see this at MMA.
ReplyDeleteMike, This is a relief. I hate sloppy fact-checking and avoid it like the plague. I was under the impression that you, Rippa and Carey disagreed with the facts I'd presented about old and new Miranda.
ReplyDelete@Val: But the decision by the Supreme Court changes nothing. The point they debated was on the waiving of the rights of the suspect in this case.
ReplyDeleteHE ANSWERED A QUESTION AND IT WAS USED AGAINST HIM IN THE COURT OF LAW!
Um, in reading of the Miranda before questioning they inform you that anything you say, can...
@Carey: Miranda only applies to persons arrested. The scenario of being pulled over and speaking to the police? Well, there's this thing on a piece of paper called the 5th Amendment... yeah, whether you did anything wrong or not, you still have the right to invoke said right to protect yourself, from incriminating yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou're ole skool so you know how it is to deal with the police. You don't have to say shit to them, and the constitution guarantees you that right.
There are many people currently sitting in prisons all because they said "the wrong things" in an interrogation without having an attorney present.
Maybe I didn't explain myself properly...
ReplyDeleteIf you sit and answer a question in an interrogation after you've been advised of your right to remain silent and to counsel. Um, you obviously waived your right, and whatever you say, can be used against you in a court of law.
Here's another similar and related exdample:
If a cop pulls you over, and for whatever reason he feels the need to search your car. He has to ask your permission to search (see the 4th Amendment). At that point you have the right to refuse. If you grant him permission what you're doing is waiving your right to refusal. Therefore, if the cop searches your car, and finds any illegal contraband. You cannot expect to appeal the conviction on the grounds that your rights were violated by illegal search and seizure (again, read up on the 4th Amendment). A cop cannot come into your house without a warrant unless you give him permission or allow him to enter without one. If they do enter your home that way and find anything illegal, that's the fault of the individual and not the cop.
IGNORANCE OF THE AW IS NO EXCUSE!
Attorney's will tell you the very same thing. That would be... do not speak to the police! The police are sworn to uphold the law. They bank on us being ignorant of the law so as to do their jobs. However, when they encounter one knowledgeable of the law as I expressed. They then treat you accordingly. And let's be honest: Who is foolish to sit for 3hrs of questioning and not say anything when one ca simply invoke said right by simply VERBALLY communicating a refusing to answer any questions without the presence of counsel.
It's common sense. But, the media is politicizing this decision and that, is the problem. Anyone could create a slant to push an agenda. But when it comes to laws it is cut and dry. And the Supreme Court did nothing but uphold a decision that has PROTECTED civilians from police abuses since 1966.
They didn't change anything.
These are some slick mofos who seem to be doing everything 'within' their power to undermine the common man. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and that's just what their banking on. It's safe to say that not many people understand what Miranda rights are outside of what they see on cop shows. It's not an excuse; sadly, it's just the way it is.
ReplyDeleteAnd Kagan? Pul-eese! Another major #FAIL.
Believe me RiPPa, You know I know. I was just giving a small example to argue against Kit's statement.>>>>> "Don't get me wrong - I'm all for locking up serious criminals, but it is so incredibly easy to get in trouble with the law even when you haven't done anything or done much, especially the young between 14 and 25 years old. Readers, you know of lots of cases, so spit out your examples if you wish"
ReplyDeleteTo me, it appeared as if she was saying this "new" law was going to tighten the noose on the young between 14 and 25 years old.
And, as you and mike have stated, even after a person has asked for their rights, their words STILL will be used against them. I believe we are agreeing.
RiPPa, like mike, I am around the penal system every day. I see them coming from the joint and before they go to the joint. I even sit in on violation cases.
We can even talk about the finer points of search warrants.
But we wouldn't want to highjack the thread.
And "You're ole skool so you know how it is to deal with the police. You don't have to say shit to them, and the constitution guarantees you that right"
Yes, you are correct, and I've read enough law books (court cases and all, when they let me out of my cell for library or other forms of free time) to speak on this subject :-)
Let me tell you a little story. One time I was being interogated. I knew the cameras were rolling so I knew we were being taped. So, even after I asked for a lawyer the "interrogator" went to plan B. As mike said, most guys willingly run their mouths or try to make instant deals(interrogators know this). So the officer decided to have a "friendly conversation". Well, tape still rolling (I knew this)we talked. Later in my discovery papers, this officer had filed his report with several lies. He was discredited because the tapes proved that he was nothing more than a fiction writer. They had a good case but because they are accustom to guys copping out, they get lazy and try to cut corners. That case went for 25yrs to probation.
Yes RiPPa, this old fool has learned a few lessons.
Carey, You said, "Believe me RiPPa, You know I know. I was just giving a small example to argue against Kit's statement... To me, it appeared as if she was saying this "new" law was going to tighten the noose on the young between 14 and 25 years old."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's exactly what I meant and I stand by it. I think the real issue is you get pissed every time I criticize Barack. I notice you didn't have jack to say about how his choice for the Supreme Court will stack the court with 6 conservatives to 3 liberal judges. If McCain were President and did that shit you'd be singing a different song.
Penny, Yes, and I'm concerned that the way she'll vote will nudge us away from being a a true democracy and closer to becoming a Police State.
@Kit:
ReplyDelete"I think the real issue is you get pissed every time I criticize Barack."
I think you hit the nail on the head. The funny thing bout it, is that the "people who get pissed," generally do so with little knowledge of the subject matter. That being the case, their reactions are often knee jerked, and arguments are not well thought out. I mean how can you hav a well calculated counter argument to any point when you really don't know jack shit, right?
Aaron McGrudder broke this down on his show The Boondocks a few weeks ago in an episode called: "Dick Riding Obama". I posted the entire episode on my blog because it was awesomely done. If you ever get a chance check it out, because it explains a lot.
Rippa, Just got in and fell out laughing when I read your sentiments. About the Dick Ridin' Obama thing with Carey, I've been too polite to go there.
ReplyDeleteCarey, I also just saw your new post, and I can't help thinking that you're trying to start a blogger war, with of all people, black men and women progressive bloggers who formerly went hard for Barack, but are now having oh shit moments based some of his decisions.
ReplyDeleteIf you could debate these beyond "if not Obama, who?" fan club rhetoric and covert hostility, I might be interested in joining the conversation. Otherwise, I have real issues to research, think and write about.
"Here is Mr. Change himself, with the golden opportunity to stack the court with a 4-5 ratio, but this five being those who will keep us safe from harm by multinationals and bad laws, and he fucks it up."
ReplyDeleteLMBAO! You don't pussyfoot around, do you?
The Root got it right it right too.
"First, legalized racial profiling, and now this. We’re not sure what’s coming next, but we do know that black and brown people will not fare well."
It seems to me the Court made a fundamental change in their ruling, putting all responsibility for invoking Miranda on the individual to thereby obtain it's protections. Prior to this ruling, the police had the burden of being able to prove they had applied Miranda standards to their investigation.
ReplyDelete*LOL* I see the circle jerk is still in full effect.
ReplyDeleteBut can yawl see the arrogant presumptions of the following statements..."The funny thing bout it, is that the "people who get pissed," generally do so with little knowledge of the subject matter. That being the case, their reactions are often knee jerked, and arguments are not well thought out. I mean how can you hav a well calculated counter argument to any point when you really don't know jack shit, right?
First, who's "really" pissed and just because some do not wish to continue the game of mindless brainwashing, does not speak to their knowledge of the subject. To assume such is a grave err. More importantly, to engage in that banter IS a sure sign of riding someones dick. Lets make that perfectly clear *smile*. The problem arises when the dick riders have convinced themselves that they are revealing a secret or knowledge that others do not possess. That's dick riding another mans dream... without a rubber. It's also called fu*king oneself.
Kit said: "I notice you didn't have jack to say about how his choice for the Supreme Court will stack the court with 6 conservatives to 3 liberal judges. If McCain were President and did that shit you'd be singing a different song"
Kit, you did say that you read my post, right? Well, what would be my purpose to engage you in that conversation-huh? You obviously are not trying to listen to the truth. Listen, lets say we talked about it, okay. Then what have we accomplished? Don't run and don't hide and don't get pissed, you know what I am talking about.
Kit continued: "Carey, if you could debate these beyond "if not Obama, who?" fan club rhetoric and covert hostility, I might be interested in joining the conversation. Otherwise, I have real issues to research, think and write about"
Again Kit, your choice of words a very perplexing. Hostility? Besides, my post is my part of the "conversation" and you've yet to address any of the issues of such. You continue to run from the core of my post. You tried to trivialize that question and the contents of that post by calling it "fan club rhetoric and covert hostility".
Not working hun. You may be fooling yourself but...
But come back and face the music. Tell me the end results of your rants on Obama. What's the prize and the payoff/cost?
Oh, you don't have to go through the process of deleting anything that you do not agree with (like you did 3 other times) I have already copied and saved.
Kit, although you didn't see a purpose to comment on my post, others have. Take notice:
ReplyDeleteCynique said: "People have a right to hold the President of the United States accountable for his actions, no matter who he is. In fact, this is the duty of the "loyal opposition." You don't have to be a Republican to challenge the policies of a Democratic president, or be white to wince over the gaffes of a black president"
HIP HIP HOORAY.... I agree 100%
Cynique said: "Or do you have to come up with a suggestion for a replacement, just because you question who currently holds the office.
Now, it's my opinion that if those "questions" are voiced in a way or in an envioronment that could lead to the removal of President Obama, I believe it's a responsibility of every black person to keep an eye on the future. From this black man's point of view, if I am going to have a hand in removing the president(in any capacity, knowingly or unconciously), "I", as a black man better concern myself with who could/would be my stepdaddy.
Cynique, you have to agree (well you don't have to) that there are followers (monkey see, monkey do people), and there are leaders. I think that's a fact. I believe followers make up the core of our society. Consequently, the core of my post speaks to being aware of how your words can persuade others.
In reference to the presidency, if black people do not concern themselves with the future (which is coming), it will repeat itself with any ol'Harry Bo Scary.
Carey, I read your hostile and nasty, Friday post on your blog, including the the unforgettable comments between you and your buddy Freeman, and where you two ripped into Rippa for strongly disagreeing with y'all.
ReplyDeleteMemorable highlights of that post are:
"HOLD UP CAREY, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP HERO WORSHIPPING?"
No, you hold up and you can blow that outcha ass..."
And that's just a sip of your hateraid.
I also saw where you reposted it at this forum, and the two commenters there, including the Cynique's, which to me, did not appear supportive of your views, as you say here.
And this part today, on this thread: "Oh, you don't have to go through the process of deleting anything that you do not agree with (like you did 3 other times) I have already copied and saved."
Creepy.
I know you're dying for me to answer your question, "if not Obama, who?"
You'll just have to fuckin' wait for the upcoming revolution to give us a new leader or for this one to get his shit together. Meanwhile, I got other posts lined up and you're not going to like or agree with those either, so don't even bother commenting on them.
Damn,at least everyone is half way thinking about what these 9 old fools are doing up there in Washington.
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion that the tweaking of the Miranda Rights is serious,we are already in a "POLICE STATE OF MIND IN THIS COUNTRY".
Anything that is done to dilute the rights of the average person out here is not just some willie nilley game being played,it's about control folks.If you are Black or Brown in this country and you still don't know to keep your mouth shut in dealing with the Police,well I don't know what else to tell you but may God keep his hands on you!
You're right Kit, she didn't agree with me. That was my point, she voiced her opinion.
ReplyDeleteBut come on Kit, play fair. RiPPa & Freeman have a thang and I try to stay out of that. I'm cool with RiPPa. I believe we have a mutual respect for each other. In fact, we've "talked" in a fashion as you and I.
**laughing** you're right, we probably will not agree on this one. But you still my girl. I still have that same boner for you *wink*
Carey, I'm not laughing. What you just said is a disguised form of hostility. We had a long ago, private joke of you having "an intellectual boner" for me. In other words, my writing skills and posts turned you on mentally. But here, the way you say it may imply more to others. It's a way of twisting things, and you've done it before with others. Women, in particular, don't care for innuendos that suggest a sexual relationship when none is there. Seen you do that too in BlogLand, and the "winks" don't make it cute.
ReplyDeleteAs for Rippa, I notice he didn't return to make a followup comment like he usually does after you and Freeman denied the obvious truth on your post and insulted him. So much for playing fair with him. I've been there, done that with you too, and you still came back with this last comment.
Man, I dunno, it's like you're trying to get attention in all the wrong ways, maybe to get more readership. I think a better way to do this is:
1) To read up on the issues if you want to write about the non-personal. Have your facts and links to support your opinions, because the "if not Obama, who?" will not cut it for those who keep up with current events, or
2) Do what you do best, write about your reflections on your personal life and what you've learned.
Otherwise, what I said in the last sentence of my last comment stands.
@KIT - Hey I didn't start it with Rippa if you read the comments he specifically came to target me. I was merely trying to point out that he is a fat hypocrite and what ground does he have to stand on as Carey's whole post is a bullseye to his whole site.
ReplyDeleteWhen a Man picks a fight and runs it doesn't make him smart, it makes him a coward.
Big Mac, Thanks, and I agree, this country is creeping slowly toward being a Police State. It's like we're going backwards to more racist times, and at the time, the entire society is speeding toward George Orwell's 1984 story.
ReplyDeleteFreeman, I'm so sorry that Carey dragged you into this bullshit. I think this is a good assumption since you two appear to be tight, and you haven't left a comment on any of posts in over a year that I can recall.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with you about the bullseye thing. And, I do remember the same thing Rippa did of you trashing Obama long, long ago over his racial heritage, not over any political decisions he made because he'd just gotten elected.
I can't and won't speak for Rippa, but had it been me, my not returning wouldn't be a case of running because of cowardice. It would be a case of not wanting to waste anymore time beating a dead horse.
"Dick ridin' for tomorrow, dick ridin' for today, dick ridin' for the straight, dick ridin' for the gay..." Thugnificent
ReplyDeleteKit,
On some real talk, much of this conversation is hinged upon interpretation. From your post, one can make the Supreme Court's decision to be a political one. A decision that plays into the post 9/11 erosion of civil liberties meme. And it's easy to come to that conclusion when you tie this decision in with that of their recent decision on political campaign funding by corporations.
However, when you look at this decision, what they have done is to essentially clearly define - not change or add to - the protections afforded to people as they encounter the police in situations which involves an interrogation.
Ultimately the highest court in the land is sworn to interpret and uphold the constitution as it applies to the rules and laws of the land. If you or others do not see this recent "decision" as a positive one which does nothing to infringe upon our rights as we have them. Then I'd have to say that you're caught up in the politics of it.
@FreeMan: Hypocrite? Me? A fat one at that? Wow, coming from the same silly Negro who asserted that Barack Obama wasn't black even before he became president. Only to turn around now and jump on the dick of a person who says it's silly to critique the president when you share the same color with him. I'm having a hard time believing that you know the true definition of the word hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing they don't teach you those things in law school, right? Its really sad when you're unable to rebut what I've said here and elsewhere without a semblance of integrity.
Ole flip-flop ass nigga!
@Rippa - For the fact that I don't want to disrespect KIT site I'll let it go.
ReplyDeleteYou know exactly what I wrote and what I was saying because you copied it onto your site you unoriginal joke. Everyone gets mad when you expose them for what they truly are. I'm still smiling can't you tell and you seem hot and bothered hmmmm. LMBAO
Freeman, Thank you.
ReplyDelete