I just got to see a flood of stupidity. The Philadelphia Inquirer had an editorial whining about the Supreme Court decision that said a suspect must voice his intention to invoke his right to remain silent. So on one side the INKY and other critics are insisting that this is a further infringement of Constitutional rights and yet another erosion of Miranda, blah blah blah. On the other side, the trolls are mocking the Inky and the critics as terrorist loving weenies, blah blah blah. The simple interpretation is that rather than subject a suspect to a long drawn out interrogation where the suspect may (gasp, accidentally) answer an incriminating question, if the suspect says he wants to remain silent, then the questioning has to stop. What’s the big deal?