Or basically Scalito and company are suggesting that a prisoner has to verbally assert his or her right to remain silent - instead of having the right to begin with, a right that the police have to get the suspect to waive for the interrogation to begin.
Excepts from the oral arguments:
The Right bloc believes that suspects have to assert Miranda rights for them to exist"And I would suggest to you that Miranda has not been a failure, that this bright-line rule, you get the rights, you (the police) get the waiver, then can you talk, that...
-JUSTICE SCALIA: I must say I've never understood that to be the law and I don't think it's generally understood to be the law, that unless you get a waiver right at the outset you have to -- you have to terminate interrogation. I think there are a lot of police departments that don't -- I've never understood that to be the rule."
(Scalia is dumbfounded by the mere existence of civil rights).
JUSTICE SCALIA: Why should the police have to play this game of, you know, an hour and hour and a half, 2 hours, 2 hours and 15 minutes, 5 hours, 7 hours? Why don't we have just a clear rule: You are read your rights; if you don't want to be questioned all you have to say is "I don't want to be questioned."
Liberal bloc not buying itJUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You want to change the Miranda rule to say: Tell someone their rights and unless they explicitly say "I don't want to talk to you," then they implicitly under virtually any circumstance haven't. That's what you believe the rule in Miranda and Butler and Davis sets forth? ...
JUSTICE BREYER: "The question, at least as I understood it, is that Miranda says you cannot admit a confession into evidence unless (the suspect) has first waived (the right to remain silent).
MR. RESTUCCIA: That's right.
JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. So, where -- where did he waive it?"
= He never did as the police kept at him for over 2 hours.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1470.pdf