SCOTUS weakened human rights in this country yesterday.

The Supreme Court retreated from strict enforcement of the famous Miranda decision on Tuesday, ruling that a crime suspect’s words can be used against him if he fails to clearly invoke his rights and instead, answers a single question after nearly three hours of interrogation.

In the past, the court has said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect has "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights.

But in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the court said the suspect has the duty to invoke his rights. If he fails to do so, his later words can be used to convict him, the justices said.

The police are "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect’s "right to remain silent before interrogating him," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

In this case, Michigan police had warned the suspect, Van Thompkins, of his rights, including the right to remain silent. Thompkins said he understood, but he did not tell the officer he wanted to stop the questioning or to speak to a lawyer.

However, he sat in a chair and said nothing for about two hours and 45 minutes. At that point, the officer asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"

"Yes," Thompson said, and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or to speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Thompkins’ conviction on the grounds that the use of the incriminating answer violated his right against self-incrimination under the Miranda decision.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and reinstated the conviction. "A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police," Kennedy said. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Speaking for the dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the rulings "marks a substantial retreat from the protections against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided." She said the conviction should be overturned because the prosecution had not "carried its burden to show that he waived his right to remain silent."

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined her dissent…