Judica Tyrannis with Jay Bybee

The federal courts have really been at it recently when it comes to the rights of the accused. Our first example comes from the recent Supreme Court case Maryland vs. Shatzer.  Mr. Shatzer was taken into custody and read his Miranda rights, after which he expressed his desire for a lawyer. This action invokes what was known as the "Edwards Rule" which denies the police the ability to question the suspect until he has had a chance for counsel. When nothing was able to be extracted from Mr. Shatzer, he was released. 2 1/2 years later he was again arrested and asked about his prior charges.  This time he decided to discuss the events, but since he had originally invoked his right to counsel, any evidence he now gave would be inadmissable.

Well, according to the Supreme Court, not anymore. They have now created an arbitrary 14-day waiting period for police to badger their suspect. What is the logic behind this?  Let's look at some of Scalia's quotes from his opinion:

In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence [of this no-further-questioning rule] is disastrous...It seems to us that period is 14 days, that provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life [and] to consult with friends and counsel.