Let me see if I understand this correctly. Under the Supreme Court's Miranda decision from the late-1960s, you have the right to remain silent, and anything you say can and will be used against in a court of law. But now, according to the Supreme Court, in order to remain silent, you must first speak and say that you're remaining silent.
Am I the only one, besides the dissent on this ruling, having problems with this logic? Shouldn't being quiet and not speaking mean that you're remaining silent? Couldn't stating that you wish to remain silent and invoking that right then be used against in Court? And if you're speaking up to invoke your right to remain silent, then how are you remaining silent?
The lack of logic here is really making my head hurt.