Counting on the Supreme Court to uphold key rights was always a mistake

[Patriotic Voter]

A post-conviction prisoner arguing that their representation was incompetent can't present new evidence to the court, as per a recent SCOTUS ruling. So it's entirely possible that exculpatory evidence that incompetent lawyers failed to present would simply not be reviewed.

The 6th amendment right to counsel basically no longer exists, since competence is no longer really required.

Nonsense. To be a lawyer, one must get a four-year bachelor's degree, then go to another four-year school for a specialized law degree. Even then, if post-graduate job training called a residency is required, you are talking about years after law school before any lawyer can become a defense specialist. Exactly how are these people - the ones who exist because of the Sixth Amendment - incompetent?

Of course, some people interpret that text too literally and do not hire a defense lawyer, just seek counsel from anyone they trust. Those are the people who should not be defending clients.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nonsense. To be a lawyer, one must get a four-year bachelor's degree, then go to another four-year school for a specialized law degree. Even then, if post-graduate job training called a residency is required, you are talking about years after law school before any lawyer can become a defense specialist. Exactly how are these people - the ones who exist because of the Sixth Amendment - incompetent?

Have you ever had a public defender (court appointed criminal defense lawyer)? If so, did they spend even one full hour talking to you or just try to get you to accept a plea deal based on their vast experience with such matters?

 

[Deuce]

Nonsense. To be a lawyer, one must get a four-year bachelor's degree, then go to another four-year school for a specialized law degree. Even then, if post-graduate job training called a residency is required, you are talking about years after law school before any lawyer can become a defense specialist. Exactly how are these people - the ones who exist because of the Sixth Amendment - incompetent?

Of course, some people interpret that text too literally and do not hire a defense lawyer, just seek counsel from anyone they trust. Those are the people who should not be defending clients.

Laughably ignorant. Not going to bother discussing this further with someone who thinks all representation is sufficient.

 

[Lisa]

We need to remove the legislative filibuster and let the chips fall where the may... For instance, if the GQP wants to do away with social security, let them and face voters...

The GOP already want to discredit and nullify elections so they don't have to worry about voter backlash.

 

[CLAX1911]

Counting on the Supreme Court to uphold key rights was always a mistake

The conservative iteration of SCOTUS is about to remove abortion protections, is watering down voting/worker/minority rights, is providing more protections/power to religion, and has monetized our elections via sanctioning corporate dark money.

Yeah it's always a bad idea to use the court to legislate.

You have to hammer it out in the legislature I have to compromise nobody is willing to compromise so nobody gets anything.

How many choices are in my way or the highway you better start walking

 

[Acadia]

Yep, which is why Constitutional amendment is important. Counting on the majority opinion of our current nine robed umpires alone is very risky. If Social Security and PPACA can pass then federal powers are basically unlimited.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that Congress should have acted at some point over the past several decades.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Counting on the Supreme Court to uphold key rights was always a mistake

The conservative iteration of SCOTUS is about to remove abortion protections, is watering down voting/worker/minority rights, is providing more protections/power to religion, and has monetized our elections via sanctioning corporate dark money.

Whiny liberal group think.

 

[multivita-man]

What was made clear (in post #10) was a desire to let a 50/50 Senate ‘majority’ (called the DNC, no less) rubber stamp

No, it's called an upper chamber parliamentarian vote - it's what a lot of democracies do. It just seems strange in our "democracy."

whatever the (demorat controlled) House might pass to (permanently?)

Don't be silly - voting laws change all the time. States change them each year, in fact.

change ‘election laws’ (called voting rights, but including campaign finance “reform”) nationwide to favor demorats.

It would only favor democrats in the sense that it would make it easier for the average person to vote. Now ask yourself, why does making it easier for people to vote inherently favor Democrats?

Trying to ensure single-party rule by federal mandate is not giving us a more representative government.

No such thing is being proposed.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Laughably ignorant. Not going to bother discussing this further with someone who thinks all representation is sufficient.

It depends on a variety of factors. Why are some defense lawyers insufficient representatives?

BTW it is worth noting not every defendant wants a lawyer.

 

[Deuce]

It depends on a variety of factors. Why are some defense lawyers insufficient representatives?

Lots of reasons. The most common is lack of time. Public defenders are systemically and deliberately underfunded. They have too many clients to actually defend.

BTW it is worth noting not every defendant wants a lawyer.

Irrelevant.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Lots of reasons. The most common is lack of time. Public defenders are systemically and deliberately underfunded. They have too many clients to actually defend.

So the problem is simply not having enough of them, which has nothing to do with the actual competence of an individual lawyer.

 

[Bullseye]

Counting on the Supreme Court to uphold key rights was always a mistake

The conservative iteration of SCOTUS is about to remove abortion protections, is watering down voting/worker/minority rights, is providing more protections/power to religion, and has monetized our elections via sanctioning corporate dark money.

That only applies when the "rights" are made up of nonsensical blather; SCOTUS protects the actual rights defined in the Contstituion.

 

[Deuce]

So the problem is simply not having enough of them, which has nothing to do with the actual competence of an individual lawyer.

That would be the most common problem, yes. Others would be due to incompetence of the individual lawyer. Or corruption of the individual lawyer. Or bribing of the individual lawyer. Or racism of the individual lawyer. Or the individual lawyer is going through a rough time and isn't focusing on work.

The idea that every lawyer is always competent is absurd.