I'm surprised to not see this decision appearing anywhere on Daily Kos tonight, so I decided to write a diary about it. While everyone is focused on the Prop 8 decision and the Sotomayor nomination, Scalia has written another opinion with possible far reaching effects. I found out about the case on DU at this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com... which uses the source here at Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/...
and it involves interrogation of a suspect without lawyers present.
The Reuters article mentions that this decision did not overturn the landmark 1966 decision that refers to interrogation without a lawyer present. This is referring to the Miranda versus Arizona decision, although Reuters doesn't specify it the Seattle Times article does.
The decision that has been overturned is Michigan versus Jackson, a 1986 decision where Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion. It prevented police from interrogating a defendant after invoking a right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding.
[The 1986 ruling has not only proved "unworkable," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, but its "marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs" in that some guilty defendants go free.] Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/...
[In dissent, Stevens said the dubious benefits of overruling the decision are far outweighed by damage to the rule of law and the integrity of the constitutional right to an attorney.] (From the Reuters article)
[After Scalia announced the decision, Justice John Paul Stevens spoke orally for the dissenters — a somewhat unusual gesture. Stevens was the author of the 1986 decision that was cast aside; he was the only member of the Court then who is still sitting.] http://www.scotusblog.com/...
Something to think about when the confirmation hearings start up soon.