Thursday’s Thoughts, On Wednesday

Thought #1

There’s something wrong with an employer which takes applications, but disqualifies anyone currently unemployed. I wonder who the moron is that came up with this idea.

If you’re unemployed, don’t even bother applying. That’s a message some job seekers are seeing as they look for their next paycheck.

It’s not the kind of message Peter May expected to see on a job listing. But when he visited the Web site for “The People Place”, an Orlando-based recruiter, there it was, in all caps, bold type: “No unemployed candidates will be considered at all.”

I definitely won’t be purchasing any Sony Ericsson products in the future. If they aren’t going to consider candidates who actually need jobs, I am not going to spend my money on any of their consumer electronics when I actually need something.

Thought #2

Nancy Pelosi says that government policy should be dictated by “The Word”. The same woman who voted to allow partial-birth abortions now says we must all answer to “The Word Made Flesh”. Has Nanny State Nancy been enlightened? Has she seen the light? That, my friends, is the great mystery.

Thought #3

Justice Sotomayor has already proven her appointment to the Supreme Court was a huge mistake.

In a case before the court pertaining to Miranda rights, the Court ruled 5-4 that suspects must implicitly invoke their right to remain silent.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a criminal suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent during a police interrogation, a decision that dissenting liberal justices said turns the protections of a Miranda warning “upside down.”

The court ruled 5 to 4 that a Michigan defendant who incriminated himself in a fatal shooting after nearly three hours of questioning thus gave up his right to silence, and the statement could be used against him at trial.

In the case about Miranda rights, suspect Van Chester Thompkins remained mostly silent for three hours of interrogation after reading and being told of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney. He neither acknowledged that he was willing to talk nor that he wanted questioning to stop.
But detectives persisted in what one called mostly a “monologue” until asking Thompkins whether he believed in God. When asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins looked away and answered, “Yes.”

The statement was used against him, and Thompkins was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Mich.

So what did Justice Sotomayor have to say about this?

“Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down,” wrote Sotomayor. “Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent, which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak.” She was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Suspects must invoke their right to remain silent? Duh! Of course they do. Miranda states, “You have the right to remain silent”. If you don’t, well, anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.

Hello!?! Dumbass! If you choose to remain silent, you must… How do I write this in a way you’ll understand? I guess I’ll just come out and write it. If you choose to remain silent, then keep your frickin’ mouth shut. Don’t say a word. Don’t mumble, don’t stutter, don’t utter one word. Silence is just that. SILENT.

The scariest part about this decision is that four U.S. Supreme Court Justices (Sotomayor, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer) actually think the right to remain silent is automatically implied by the reading of Miranda. They actually think suspects are being treated unfairly if they don’t remain silent. Does the oath for members of the Supreme Court include the right to remain stupid?