As the Supreme Court's criminal procedure jurisprudence becomes more and more like a giant game of Jenga, our public dialogue needs to shift. We can't just talk about which rights we possess; we need to talk about how effectively they can be used -- and how well they match what we think we know.
The Boston bombing is so horrific, and the evidence of guilt apparently so overwhelming, that the country might wish to go straight to the punishment stage, but that is not how our system of justice functions.
We can all agree that what happened at the marathon is unacceptable in the 21st Century, but I think we can just as easily agree that how we react to such events is just as important as the events themselves.
As Boston exhales and is set for recovery, the deepest of sympathies will be redoubled to all those affected. Boylston Street will be run on again, and citizens have been assured that the suspect "will feel the full weight of justice."
It all began in Boston -- when a group of brave colonists resisted the yoke of a despotic king and sought freedom. Protecting Tsarnaev's constitutional rights is the best tribute we could give to the storied legacy of that great city where our freedoms and rights first took hold.
It may be that the time has come to create a "non-political" and "independent" attorney general, one who would serve the interests of the public by upholding the rule of law rather than justifying the whims of the president.
A New York appeals court ruled last week that Queens prosecutors' violated the constitution through their interrogation program, which identified people without counsel to interrogate before reading them their Miranda rights.