Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

I would not get involved in this post, but a friend sent me the link to this thread and so here goes:

Before anyone gets entirely carried away with any words from any opinion, notice that it's a plurality decision; in other words, no majority, no five justices agreed in any one opinion.

Alito, the Chief Justice, and Kennedy agreed in one opinion.

Thomas and Scalia concur in the judgment, but for different reasons. They set those reasons out separately.

That makes five, united in an outcome, for different reasons that no majority agreed upon.

Breyer writes a dissent, joined by three, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. That's four altogether, a minority, but a minority that agrees.

And what's clear from a majority of voices is that if the defendant had simply said that he was invoking his right to remain silent, his refusal to answer/his silence could not be used against him. Like the dissenters, I think that's a bit ritualistic, too ritualistic to be good constitutional law, but that's what they said.