I read through the opinion, and skimmed the dissent... This case was decided along the clear ideological lines that divide the current court.
Sotomayor's dissent was concluded with:
Or hey.... they could just not speak... A literal interpretation of "the right to remain silent!" What a concept.Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.
As is the case with most liberals, her opinion seems to be rooted in some sort of a fantasy-land. When you boil down all the facts and the 46 pages of both the opinion and the dissent, what you find is that the accused was asked and then answered a simple question. Nobody tortured the guy, or coerced him, he answered a simple question. The dissent basically would require accused criminals to be free from the consequences of their voluntary confessions unless they jumped through a bunch of hoops to certify that they were indeed confessing.
I honestly sometimes wonder how such faulty logic and lack of coherent reasoning ability permits these people to function in society.