Since this is a question that might come before the court, I cannot answer the question.

"There are exceptions to Miranda and that is one of the ways in which we conduct our interrogations of terrorism suspects, it's what we did with Abdulmutallab, it's what we did with Shahzad," Holder said. (See video below)

As Holder went on to note, the Supreme Court, which recognized the public safety exception in the 1984 Quarles case, has never laid out how long questioning can last under the exception. link

 

According to this post, this administration has taken this exception from what "you're typically looking at something that's done at the instance of arrest for a very short period of time -- just a couple of questions" to "50 minutes and a few hours respectively."

As a legal matter, I find this idea puzzling.  Neither Miranda nor the Quarles public safety exception to it are statutory.  Rather, they are constitutional decisions that the Supreme Court has adopted.   And the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that Miranda doctrine is up to the Justices, not Congress: As the Court put it in Dickerson v. United States,  530 U.S.  428 (2000), "Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively."

the last administration didn't even bother with the nicety of legislation, it just issued executive orders, and loaded the courts with rightwing ideologues. the present one appears ready to take the next logical step, and attempt to embed constitutional violations in the law.

Under her leadership the paper wrote this:

In her capacity as editorial chairman during her junior and senior years, Kagan spent nearly every evening at the `Prince' newsroom. But Bernstein cautioned that Kagan likely did not write all the editorials. "That wasn't her style ... She was a very collaborative person," he said.

One set of unsigned editorials published in the spring of 1980, written in response to the federal government's discussion of reinstating draft registration, attacked the militaristic identity the country was headed toward. The nation was "unfortunately" moving toward "an era in which myopic and over-sensitive `national pride' precludes the thoughtful search for alternatives to an unnecessary draft registration," it said.

The pieces also criticized President Jimmy Carter, claiming that "the president has always been a better campaigner than a leader, and he is flagrantly using the present crisis to further his own chances for reelection ... In riding the wave of public patriotism and mass support for registration shown in the polls, the president is shutting his eyes to the dangers inherent in his own policy." In July of that year, Carter signed a proclamation that reinstated the requirement that males aged 18-26 register with the Selective Service.

That is criticism of a Democratic President during a time of national crisis with the Iranian Hostage crisis and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

Kagan is clearly brilliant.  She, I think, has good values....She could be a brilliant Justice....A liberal Justice....

Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling.

Does the Congress have the right to limit Fifth Amendment rights by passage of a statute?