[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Why? Because it suits your notion of the way you'd like things to be?

Yes, it's an opinion. I infer from several of your posts that you may have lost your understanding of the purpose of this forum (discussions, per the description). This is probably my fault, since I've been soaking up so much education on even the most basic legal issues that one could be forgiven for thinking this was anything but an online lecture hall (and again, thanks to you and everyone else for that ongoing schooling, I'm sure educating the ignorant is not the most appealing way for you guys to spend your time).

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

SCOTUS in Salinas decided a dispute on the bases of established legal principles, the Constitution and precedent. That's how courts are supposed to decide things.

Even if true, can't we revisit some or all of those legal principles, the Constitution, and precedent, discuss them, and see if they don't need changes in light of what happened in Salinas? I think we can all agree SCOTUS doesn't always get it right, therefore there is room for improvement in a general sense, even if only in theory.

Originally Posted by gc70

Over the years, the courts have expanded the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment so substantially that many people may have come to believe that those expansions are really derived from some sort of underlying unqualified right to remain silent.

I doubt the courts are the cause, I would go with TV as the likely explanation. But I'm very interested to learn about these substantial expansions of the 5A -- if you have any favorite links on this topic that I'm unlikely to encounter via a Google search, please toss them my way.

Originally Posted by Spats

Thus far, my reading of Salinas is not that the Court took away any rights from the defendant, but merely that it declined to expand A5 protections to a new area where the A5 has never reached before.

OK, thanks. I'll be interested to hear if your opinion changes after you've had time to complete your reading.
Seems like you and Frank and in agreement, so I'll assume you're both right. So is this correct: Salinas expanded (if I understand Frank's use of the word) the powers of the State -- they can now use silence in criminal litigation in a way / ways that were not previously available to them.

The 5A didn't cover this ground previously, you say. This previously unallocated ground has now been found not to belong in the domain of the people, but instead to the State. Is that correct?