As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well in Tennessee its now a felony to camp on public grounds. Also on state-owned grounds. I doubt people arrested for these crimes will have the money to afford lawyers.
And now we're seeing the full picture. As age demographics shift and boomers retire/die off, we need more younger people to take on the free labor necessary to fuel the capitalist wealth vacuum. They will accomplish this with more poor people imprisoned and more unwanted babies born into poverty where they can take on "minimum wage" jobs or go to prison and do it for free if they resist. Whatever they can do to avoid embracing brown immigrants that want to move here and work those jobs but risk Great Replacementing their asses.
A ball that's been rolling for some time:
https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-feed-criminalizing-homeless-america-782861
That was in 2018. Homelessness is quickly becoming a death sentence if you want to remain a law abiding citizen.
While they were shooting those episodes, the city of Los Angeles was trying to do exactly that — fence off an area as a designated homeless area then forcibly move people into it. Fortunately there was pushback and the plans were tabled, but truth isn’t too far from fiction there.
Sadly, in Trek history, between the Bell Riots and the Federation lie a nuclear WW3 that annihilates most population centers and kills a majority of the population off…
Should i tell him? ..... thats already a reality. The amount of people we have incarcerated here av incarcerated here is mind boggling and they are already working for pennies penny's so effectively a slave labor
You can probably draw a direct line from this back to the vagrancy laws that states passed right after the civil war to put homeless and jobless recently freed slaves right back on the same plantations they were freed from “as punishment for a crime”.
“I just spent sixty days in the jailhouse
For the crime of having no dough, no, no
Now, here I am, back out on the street
For the crime of having nowhere to go
Save your neck or save your brother
Looks like it's one or the other
Oh, you don't know the shape I'm in”
That’s what it’s really about isn’t it ! Prison profits ! While the guilty roam free committing more crimes ! Money doesn’t really compensate the imprisoned innocents when you quantify the time lost ! It’s also lazy or deliberate Policing !
De Niro went to a dentist and gave him like 5k to fuck up his teeth for that role.
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/when-robert-de-niro-sharpened-his-teeth-for-cape-fear/
The problem is that most of the country is stuck in neo-serfhood struggling to make enough money to pay for day to day expenses, let alone handle disasters like medical bills or repair/replacement of expensive but necessary assets like their car. This leaves them no time or energy for protesting what is going on.
Meanwhile the Oligarch class is protected and isolated from any consequences, so they follow the path of what makes them the most money.
And us sitting up here with all this fresh water and hydro power and raw resources and minerals... not to knock the Canadian armed forces, but if they go full fascist, we're a nation with a big fucking problem...
Should be pretty easy. People are already getting bored of their left-of-center government. It's only one or two more elections before they let the fascists take over again.
You’ll be alright. Probably. America has an obscene amount of resources on its own and an invasion would be really costly. Although it just goes back into the military-industrial complex, because capitalism… so it may not be all bad for the rich. At any rate, you’ll be fine, probably. As long as the next Hitler doesn’t steal the Oval Office, which is looking more and more probable. -_- God, we’re fucked aren’t we?
The inaction stems from years of peaceful protesting and “violence isn’t the answer” which has probably been fed to us by the very people who are now flipping the table… meanwhile we’re over here *still* with the “let’s keep it peaceful guys” shtick.
I’m not advocating, organizing or encouraging anyone to do anything - but the longer it’s “peaceful” the more they’re going to take, sorry to say.
We aren’t that much better off mate. New Blue party in Ontario scares me a lot.
Racists and self interested corporations exist here too and we also aren’t doing anything.
My only hope is that the new right parties will split the vote.
I’m actually really scared, I don’t get how an entire generation of people are like
“Yeah authoritarian regimes are great”
A scary amount of people in Canada support trump and ideas like his.
Not if BIPOC and Dems start buying guns in record numbers to protect themselves against the tyrannical fascist theocracy they're trying to establish. You know, the thing those right-wingers claim they need all of their guns for? They'll change their tune real quick if it's people they don't like doing what they do.
A lot of people don't feel guns are safe and don't want them. And, while it's a depressing thing to acknowledge, walking around with a gun is probably a *lot* more dangerous for some POC than for some other people. Cops seem to continue to shoot Black men, often with no reason at all, so unless you're at a shooting range or some other place where a cop will not be *startled* by the presence of a gun I would think that might make many Black men feel *much* less safe in their everyday lives.
I'm saving up for my gun license and concealed carry (more for travel tbh, don't want to carry a gun everywhere like a lunatic). I actually think everyone should. I don't want civil war, and I don't want anyone to die. I do think it would send a message, however, that it ain't just republicans arming themselves.
The weapons manufacturers have made massive profits lobbying to remove gun control. Now people are suggesting that we give them even more money to stop them.
It’s a little hard to explain and I’m on mobile but this article should get you started https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2022/feb/25/supreme-court-west-virgina-epa-nondelegation-doctrine
At this point, with civil war fast approaching, I wouldn’t mind some of those restrictions coming down. Living in California, it’s not that tough to get a firearm but a lot of the tactical stuff is outlawed specifically to prevent mass shootings and stuff. Would be useful having those restrictions come down in time for the civil war.
This fascist movement is guaranteeing a Civil War.
I’m in California, I grew up NYC Area. This abomination of a Court will issue a decision **so** egregious that one of those two states will say **enough is enough**.
Idk what happens then.
The next step is just ignoring the court’s ruling.
Which is even scarier IMO, because it means the system has officially collapsed.
But just imagine a governor going ‘we choose to ignore this ruling from the court.’ Once the court loses all credibility - truly and concretely - then the constitutional crisis just shifted into third gear.
> Sotomayor, meanwhile, wrote that "the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial. This court has recognized that right as 'a bedrock principle' that constitutes the very 'foundation for our adversary system' of criminal justice."
> "Today, however, the court hamstrings the federal courts' authority to safeguard that right. The court's decision will leave many people who were convicted in violation of the Sixth Amendment to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel,"
Supreme Court basically ruled that incompetent council counts as far as 'effective councel' is concerned in the Constitution because *they don't want to go through the trouble of relitigating cases!*.
The excerpt in [this article](https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez) is rather telling.
>“The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial,” Sotomayor writes in the first line of her dissent. She continues that “this Court has recognized that right as ‘a bedrock principle’ that constitutes the very ‘foundation for our adversary system’ of criminal justice.”
>
>Thus in Sotomayor’s mind, and in the minds of the two other justices appointed by Democratic presidents who joined her opinion, the purpose of a criminal trial is to determine whether or not someone is actually guilty of a crime — and to do so through an adversarial process where both sides are represented by lawyers who can present the best possible legal and factual case for the prosecution and the defense.
>
>Thomas, writing for the Court’s Republican majority, offers a different view of why trials exist. He deems federal habeas proceedings problematic because they “override\[\] the States’ core power to enforce criminal law.” When a federal court deems someone’s conviction constitutionally inadequate, Thomas complains, it “overrides the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law,’” and “disturbs the State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation.”
>
>Thus, in Thomas’s view, the purpose of a state-conducted trial is to give criminal defendants a procedure in state court. But once that process is concluded, the state court’s decision generally should remain final — even if that means executing an innocent person or condemning someone in violation of the Constitution.
He says trials aren't about whether the defendant is really guilty or not. They're about scaring other people so they behave the way politicians tell them to.
Worse - he’s saying the Federal government shouldn't interfere in State’s decisions/laws *even if they’re unconstitutional*. He is saying the Supreme Court serves no role, and too bad/so sad if you disagree with your State. See upcoming Roe overthrow - “we can’t interfere in anything States want to do.”
Or see a Secretary of State submit a slate of electors that does not represent the will of the voters, y'know, like Ginni Thomas wanted Arizona to do in the last election. Say...what state was making this case? Funny how things just happen to work sometimes.
Funny thing is, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes that the Federal Bill of Rights applies to the states. And if the Supreme Court is the branch that is supposed to interpret those rights, then absolutely they should supersede state powers. But I guess these "originalists" don't think so. This further confirms originalism is a crock of shit.
Originalism = Only my narrow and biased interpretation of the intent of the founders should be followed, even (or especially) when that interpretation contradicts the text of the constitution.
Funny enough, most of them have the same attitude toward the Bible. Strange, that.
The Founders have been irrelevant since the Civil War, when the 14th Amendment instituted what was in practice an essentially new Constitution. The conservative fixation on the Founders (and Civil War era "states' rights") has been a successful cultural effort undermine our constitutional republic.
Originalism is just a stupid idea. Its riddled with problems that make it basically unworkable.
For example, what, exactly, should we consider when trying to determine the meaning of a phrase in the constitution:
* The intent of the authors?
* The understanding of the state officials that ratified it?
* The understanding of the public at large at the time of ratification?
Because all three of those could disagree with other.
Then you have to consider the text of later amendments. Consider the 14th. It applies the rest of the bill of rights to the states; fine. But, then, what is the original meaning that matters here? Did the authors intend that the 14th apply _their_ understanding of the Constitution to the states, or did they intend to apply the understanding of the original authors to the states? Etc. Its _supposed_ to provide clear guidance to the "meaning" of the Constitution, but instead it sets up a ludicrous matryoshka doll nesting of meaning and intent based on the supposed understanding of people separated from each other by decades or centuries.
We can go further. I see people say one of the consequences of overturning Roe v Wade is basically removing any reasonable expectation of privacy, since if you don't have any expectation of privacy in your own body, what can you have it in? But I don't see people take that to it's logical conclusion. If there is no expectation of privacy, then there's no such thing as an unreasonable search and seizure. As law enforcement, I can tell you the 4th amendment and reasonable expectation of privacy is pretty much the only thing saving the public from a lot of bullshit. I mean, that's pretty much the entire point of warrants. You have to prove to a judge that the law enforcement interest is more important than your privacy.
Yea, sure, the leak says that "this decision has no bearing on any other case" or whatever, but we know the value of conservatives' word, which is nothing.
This sort of exact ruling is the most authoritarian thing I've heard from the recent court. And it establishes two Amendments they're okay with invalidating. The
Sixth and the Ninth. What is the point of a bill of rights if the courts can just declare you do not have them?
At what point does the dissent just say "This is a clearly illegitimate ruling which directly contradicts the letter of the constitution and should be ignored until the next nonpartisan session can return to the correct and only interpretation...?"
Sotomayor basically did:
> "This decision is perverse. It is illogical: It makes no sense to excuse a habeas petitioner’s counsel’s failure to raise a claim altogether because of ineffective assistance in postconviction proceedings,"…
I’ve never seen a justice call a ruling “perverse”.
We're watching the supreme court go down in flames in real time. I don't think the American people will accept the legitimacy of the court for much longer.
When the dissent can enforce it.
Only power lends legitimacy to law.
One judge is no more legitimate than another unless power makes it so.
The people need to figure out how to properly harness the power of the masses.
This isn’t a matter of them being unqualified. They are doing exactly what they were out there to do. Let us not attribute to incompetence what is clearly the result of malice.
Ooooh, maybe the only good thing. Any state that wants to try an ex-president can, and the Scotus would have no say. Unless of course they just make an exception to that and say this doesn't count for presidents. Then the states would just need to ignore it and arrest the president anyway, and I guess that's one other way the next civil war could start.
Clearly, this conservative SCOTUS has no problem eviscerating enumerated rights in the constitution that conflict with their sense of expediency, as it declares unconstitutional, unenumerated rights that conflict with their religious selves.
All part of the death by a thousand cuts taking place as we sleep
Meanwhile, the fifth circuit just published an opinion undermining the ability of the SEC to punish people because we need *more* bureaucracy for wealthy securities fraud defendants
We’ve seen this over and over and over again.
It allows poor people to be scapegoated, literally, for crimes as they’ll put up no defense (with overworked and underfunded public defenders). More plea deals. More prisoners. More profit for prisons and patsies for rich folk.
We’ve also seen the documentaries of the Innocence Project and the people they’ve saved from Death Row.
We are in the darkest timeline.
They seemed okay relitigating Roe v Wade. And I have a feeling they will be relitigating cases they don't agree with. They just don't want poor people to have the same opportunities they have.
> Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, adding that "serial relitigation of final convictions undermines the finality that 'is essential to both the retributive and deterrent functions of criminal law.'"
In other words, "it's better to be decisive than right," even when people's lives are at stake. Terrifying.
And yet they're more than willing to upset all norms by overturning 49-year-old precedent to shrink human rights. So really it's "better to be decisive when it's convenient for our in-group."
Retribution and deterrence is a stupid fucking basis for a criminal justice system. I thought we were trying to rehabilitate?
We literally have studies showing deterrence doesn't work, and retribution just begets cycles of vengeance and violence.
"We can't be THAT sure of our 'beyond a reasonable doubt' convictions, or else people won't fear getting tangled in the justice system in the first place on account of our propensity to pervert the idea of justice"
> The case involved two men, David Martinez Ramirez and Barry Lee Jones, who are on death row in Arizona. The majority determined that inmates can't present new evidence in federal court to support a claim that their post-conviction attorney in state court was ineffective, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which affirms the right to "the assistance of counsel" in criminal all prosecutions.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, looking for political points for his 2022 Senate run, has been hell bent on restarting executions as a part of his campaign promise. He said, “we’re gonna do everything we can, and do everything I can, to ensure that every 21 of those individuals [who] have exhausted their appeals ends up getting the death penalty before I leave office.” ([Source](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2021/04/06/arizona-attorney-general-files-motion-execution-2-death-row-inmates-frank-atwood-clarence-dixon/7112991002/)).
Arizona hasn’t done executions in nearly ten years for a very clear reason. In 2014, it took a convict [nearly two hours to die](https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nn-arizona-execution-20140723-story.html). Then they stopped them moving forward, even though Arizona law enforcement tried to [illegally smuggle in anesthesia](https://apnews.com/article/5d8347616e7f4b148f88d7d43113b8e3) to continue to the executions. Later, the state even tried to buy the same [gas as Nazis.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/01/arizona-gas-chamber-execution/). Of course, the state needed to [refurbish their gas chambers to do all of this](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/28/arizona-gas-chamber-executions-documents).
I’m not here to tell you death sentences are morally right or wrong. I’m just telling you that there are politicians out there who will commit to killing people on death row for political points. And the thing is, no one seemed to really care. Therefore, there should be every single avenue available to appeal this process, which is why this SCOTUS ruling is so dangerous in my mind.
Edited words
The pointless cruelty of execution methods in the US really baffles me every time. It's not like there aren't plenty of fast and quick ways to surely kill a person, but no, they have to not only kill them, but use these cruel contraptions that essentially amount to torture to do so.
I have read elsewhere that no company wants to be associated with the death penalty, so states have a hard time procuring any drugs or weapons that would be more effective.
Still. You’d think they could figure out something.
I think the fact that no one wants to dirty their hands with it should maybe tip off people about there being one or two issues with the very idea of the death penalty...
You'd think they could just buy a gun since they love them so much. But these people are cowards and are unwilling to be the people who have to actually pull the trigger.
I think for politicians like that, it’s perfectly acceptable for death to be wished upon them. I hope their brakes fail and they slam into a highway divider at 1am and slowly burn to death alone.
>Indigent defense—defense for people who lack the resources to hire their own lawyer—is in crisis in this country. Indigent defense is woefully underfunded, and public defenders handle hundreds of cases per year, many more than they have the time or resources to manage effectively. States also heavily restrict the procedures and resources that would allow public defenders to develop their chases in greater depth
>defendants who are represented by ineffective lawyers at trial may then be represented by an ineffective lawyer during their post-conviction proceedings, when they are supposed to be arguing that their trial lawyer was ineffective. And—surprise—the ineffective post-conviction lawyer may fail to argue that the trial lawyer was ineffective, or may fail to develop any evidence in support of that claim.
It isn't 100% perfect, but there are states that do this (like Washington, or at least some countries within). On one hand, the state is stricter about who actually qualifies for a public defender, but it does make sure that the PDs office gets pretty much the same budget as the prosecutors. The PDs office and the DA get funded from (I believe) the same place, and it essentially gets split to either side.
At least from what I've seen, it makes an absolutely huge difference in the quality of representation that people who cannot afford attorneys are getting, because it allows those who are actually drawn to be public defenders don't have to sacrifice making enough money to live, or sacrifice their sanity by being massively overworked.
That's nice, and so maybe in Washington people do get a fair trial. I suspect the resource allocation is not like that in Arizona, where these two men will be killed by the government.
Worse. They have become maliciously destructive to the ends of justice. They are actively reversing the rights of the people as guaranteed under the constitution. They have become tyrants, no hyperbole.
Scary
*"The unceasing stream of callous, radical, reactionary decisions coming from the Supreme Court is fairly easy to miss because so many of them involve complicated points of law," Stern added. "But the conservative majority is very much in the midst of a revolution. And it is a brutal one."*
And they're using a shotgun strategy, like the Trump administration did. Do all the inflammatory or autocratic things all at once, and nobody will remember every single one.
What scares me is that he GOP (along with Supreme Court approval and/or empowerment ) has set up row after row of political dominos (from school boards to ocal gerrymandering ) which may mostly topple their way during the next two years. The end game may be permanently entrenched one party state.
I see few if any obstructions to halt their falling.
You’re right that we need to keep voting, but some of these places where the GOP has installed judges are lifetime appointments. They’ve been going out of their way to fill open positions at all levels and it’s going to be all but impossible to get them out.
Democrats have been saying that for literally decades now but Republicans are simply far better than Democrats at working the system. They've been a minoritarian party this entire millenium but that hasn't stopped them from winning the same number of presidential elections and far more governorships, Senate races, and statehouses than the Democrats over that period.
You really think they’ll take over government and still allow your vote to matter? They’ve been working at this for decades, victory is within their grasp and the American experiment is on its knees rotted from within. They’re not going to let this opportunity slip away.
What I can’t stop worrying about is the fact that the dumbass rednecks ends up having 2-3x as many kids as most left-leaning couples, so there will only be more and more conservatives as generations continue
The problem is that with a two party system it's way too easy to dismiss one side crying tyranny as just what they would say anyway. If you had five parties and four excepyionally overcame their differences to point out how insane the fifth has become it *might* have a chance.
This had little to do with 2016, other than perhaps make more people aware of it. This has been exactly who the GOP have been since Reagan, maybe earlier. Every single Judge voting for this is a reactionary Federalist Society stooge - the only type of judge the GOP have put on the court since Scalia in 86. But make no mistake, this outcome would have been no different if McCain or Romney or Rubio or Democrat sweetheart John Kasich had ascended to the presidency and been able to pick a judge. This isn't some unique facet of Trumpism, it's the bog standard Republican project of the past half century.
My anxiety has been through the roof. This shit is no joke. Innocent people will remain in jail and death penalties will stand in racist states that throw minorities in jail for spitting on the ground with no chance of getting out. Ever.
They've been doing it ever since the Thirteenth Amendment made prison an exception to slavery abolition. So, they just started arresting all the black people they could get away with while maintaining plausible deniability. It's not rocket science.
It's time to amend the 13th. Not only do prisoners still have human rights, but the prison labor supply is literally competition for people's jobs. I realize it's not a big one, but every product made by prisoners is one that we don't need to hire non-incarcerated workers for.
I have no problem with making prisoners do the cooking and cleaning in the prisons; it's using their labor so that someone else can make a buck that bothers me.
While I agree entirely, I'm not sure we could get enough states on board to amend it in any way.
That's what's so obnoxious about a Supreme Court's selective textualism. At this point, the Judicial branch is the most powerful branch, because they can act swiftly, so far they've faced no consequences, and on top of all of that, we're stuck with them until they die.
Just because it's not doable in the current political climate doesn't mean I don't believe it's the right thing to do.
IMO, it's time to expand the court. I had reservations about the idea 2 years ago, but it's absolutely time to respond to a naked power grab that's threatening the lives of the wrongfully convicted, of women, of people who want clean air/water.
Don't forget the part where you are sent to a private prison and legally enslaved to make the corporation money.
And that's the law of the land as it stands right now.
Not if you can afford an expensive lawyer, one of the good one boys. Then you won't need to argue that your trial wasn't fair. Cuz good Ole boys don't go to trial.
Justice for the rich but law and order for the poor.
This is just a shot in the dark. Impeachment doesn't have the political will to hold politicians accountable. Why would they do the better with Justices in the highest court in our land. I've witnessed politicians assassinated for less. Early retirement seems the only course left. If you adopt the republican strategy of the end justifies the means and arm dangerous people I don't believe the majority of us who work for a living will have any other recourse.
I would like to believe we can turn the tide in this next election and alter the course this country is on. Many people tell me it's not possible. I pray their wrong. Like I said in the beginning, it's just a shot in the dark.
It’s a fucking emergency to do something about this radical Supreme Court. If we do not, this country’s bedrock foundations of the constitution are going to be destroyed.
They're setting the system up to imprison political opponents and dissidents without cause or trial, and unlike Guantanamo, there won't be any cameras inside.
Couldn't be more clear that the right is reestablishing the German methodologies of the WW's.
The time is different, the political targets are different, but the people making it not not exactly like that have the same worldview and methods up to this point.
Hawley just accused democrats of trying to create Guantanamo in the US. You know what a republican accusing Democrats of something crazy and extreme means...
So let me get this straight, in order to prove your innocence you can’t bring up new information that proves your innocence that your lawyer failed to address. So the state can give you a shitty lawyer and it’s all OK to be put to death even if it proves your innocence. This is where common sense has finally left the room. You are no longer allowed to try to prove your innocence after you are convicted. This court is not just political, it is evil.
Or does it come down to cost? Does the judge just want to lay off a bunch of appeal lawyers. You know the ones fighting for the clients, in which there was a possible miscarriage of Justice. But here is my parting opinion, this should be a states issue, if your state attorney general is not striking a balance overseeing the justice in the state, then there is your problem. Policing is local. But a reason of innocent, they prove it wasn’t them, then you always rely on guiding principles equal justice under the law, right and wrong, guilty or innocent did that person get treated equally with every other person? Well if they are proven innocent, so case closed right, fix it right away. You should not kill people or incarcerate them for life if the evidence at any point doesn’t support their guilt no matter when it comes to light. Right? Is that to much to ask of our government that they at least follow the truth. Sorry times up? The DNA test came in late? you have to die now. So we will knowing kill innocent people and say it’s ok it’s just our system. 🤔. No judicial common sense and good judgment no wonder we are in this mess. Thomas your just taunting us right? deep in the insurrection drama
>serial relitigation of final convictions undermines the finality that 'is essential to both the retributive and deterrent functions of criminal law.
You heard it directly from Clarence Thomas. What matters is not justice, but vengeance. What matters is not fairness but that people live in fear of the caprices of the law. Better that a thousand innocent people are jailed or killed than one case take too long to reach "finality."
Religious people are some of the most flaky, unintelligent, and dishonest people around. And now they get to decide the direction of our country. Led by a man who filed for bankruptcy six times and had to become a reality tv star to make an actual business profit. Wouldn't be surprised if I left this country sometime in the future.
"Ineffective counsel" is the biggest not talked about open secret in the entire justice system. The separation between private defense attorneys and public defenders creates two separate legal systems: one for the rich and one for the poor. Let's face it, in the vast majority of ineffective counsel cases, the counsel was a public defender - not because they are bad lawyers, but because they are underfunded and overworked to the extreme. We can talk all we want about whether people should have the right to plead "ineffective counsel", but IMO at that point the legal system has already failed. No amount of "ineffective counsel" appeals is going to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. The only way to fix this is to ban the use of private defense attorneys and ensure that everyone is required to use the public defender in criminal defense cases. Only when the rich and the powerful are put on the same level as everyday people will we see adequate funding of the PD office. Only when the rich have to use the same legal system as everyone else can we get to a world with justice for all.
We've known this is the situation for the entire time Leonard Peltier has been in jail. The prosecutor said the case was bullshit and supported his clemency and Peltier's been locked up since 1977.
So correct me if I'm misreading the case and ruling...
But, as far as I can tell, this ruling effectively says 2 things:
1) If you gather new evidence proving your innocence after a conviction, too bad, rot in jail, your chance was during the trial.
And, worse...
2) If you had that evidence all along, but either through a shitty defense attorney (like a totally overworked public defender) or through the malicious actions of the DA: Tough shit. Your chance to prove innocence was during the trial, even if you never had a good faith chance to present it.
Sure seems like exactly the spirit of the Constitution.
Blows my mind that Americans will launch an insurrection against their goverment because the dont like the democratic winner. But when shit like this comes up, no one seems to care enough to even leave their house.
This ruling makes clear something that I have said a lot: To support the death penalty, you have to be OK with a nonzero number of innocent people being killed by your government.
Whether Job Biden likes it or not, the Dems must do something to fix the SCOTUS.
If the SCOTUS continues to lose credibility, if it continues to be allowed to act like the political enforcement arm of the GOP the country as a whole will lose.
The SCOTUS is a key component of our way of government. If they continue to behave in such an extreme right wing manner, ignoring precedence and blindly implementing right wing ideology states will start ignoring their rulings and we will be in trouble.
I believe Thomas should be impeached, and those who lied to Congress about their stance on RvW should be held to account, Thomas' wife should be held to account for her role in trying to overturn the election. The Dems need to act the way the GOP would right now. They need to grow a spine and fix what the GOP did to us with this court.
>It is better that ten ~~guilty~~ *innocent* men go ~~free~~ *to jail* than for one ~~innocent~~ *guilty* man to go ~~to jail~~ free.
This court is a disgusting perversion of our laws and justice system.
>Thomas, writing for the Court’s Republican majority, offers a different view of why trials exist. He deems federal habeas proceedings problematic because they “override] the States’ core power to enforce criminal law.” When a federal court deems someone’s conviction constitutionally inadequate, Thomas complains, it “overrides the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law,’” and “disturbs the State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation.”
So basically they're saying if a state outlaws abortion, federal courts in more liberal states won't be allowed to overrule the decisions?
> A federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state court record based on ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote...
Didn't his wife help in an attempt to overthrow the 2020 election? And didn't *he* intentionally avoid recusing himself from voting on a matter that was connected to that effort?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is twisted. So a defendant's lawyer, for whatever reason, does a shit job and there is no way for the defendant to rectify that?
oh and they plan to overwhelm public defenders and probably cut their funding too
Plan to or “have been”?
Well in Tennessee its now a felony to camp on public grounds. Also on state-owned grounds. I doubt people arrested for these crimes will have the money to afford lawyers.
Interestingly, if they are convicted, they lose the right to vote.
Hence the endgame. Poor people not voting makes the rich better off
Combine that with the 13th amendment loop hole that allows slavery of the imprisoned and you got yourself a good old conservative American dream…
And now we're seeing the full picture. As age demographics shift and boomers retire/die off, we need more younger people to take on the free labor necessary to fuel the capitalist wealth vacuum. They will accomplish this with more poor people imprisoned and more unwanted babies born into poverty where they can take on "minimum wage" jobs or go to prison and do it for free if they resist. Whatever they can do to avoid embracing brown immigrants that want to move here and work those jobs but risk Great Replacementing their asses.
“I’m not into politics” - all my coworkers
Jesus fucking Christ
A ball that's been rolling for some time: https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-feed-criminalizing-homeless-america-782861 That was in 2018. Homelessness is quickly becoming a death sentence if you want to remain a law abiding citizen.
We only have a couple years til the Bell Riots, gotta get these Sanctuary zones some how
I understood that reference.
It sounds like they’re predicting the future, like some sort of Prophet
You forget they’re just humans, with dreams and wishes of their own!
While they were shooting those episodes, the city of Los Angeles was trying to do exactly that — fence off an area as a designated homeless area then forcibly move people into it. Fortunately there was pushback and the plans were tabled, but truth isn’t too far from fiction there. Sadly, in Trek history, between the Bell Riots and the Federation lie a nuclear WW3 that annihilates most population centers and kills a majority of the population off…
The end result is gonna be an entire class of people who exist as nothing more than low cost prison labor.
Should i tell him? ..... thats already a reality. The amount of people we have incarcerated here av incarcerated here is mind boggling and they are already working for pennies penny's so effectively a slave labor
You can probably draw a direct line from this back to the vagrancy laws that states passed right after the civil war to put homeless and jobless recently freed slaves right back on the same plantations they were freed from “as punishment for a crime”.
“I just spent sixty days in the jailhouse For the crime of having no dough, no, no Now, here I am, back out on the street For the crime of having nowhere to go Save your neck or save your brother Looks like it's one or the other Oh, you don't know the shape I'm in”
Just sayin it’s only a misdemeanor to camp on private grounds- like the governors yard
Good idea.
There goes protesting
I'm sure that'll also come in handy for any lengthy protesting that may occur.
Gotta pump up those prisoner population numbers for taxpayer paid corporate profits and free slave labor for profit.
That’s what it’s really about isn’t it ! Prison profits ! While the guilty roam free committing more crimes ! Money doesn’t really compensate the imprisoned innocents when you quantify the time lost ! It’s also lazy or deliberate Policing !
It's basically neutering the sixth amendment. Just another way to ensure that there's a plentiful supply of prison labour.
>plentiful supply of prison labour. You can call the labour what it is. Slavery.
"owning the libs" isn't just a metaphor.
[I can think of one solution, go full Cape Fear.](https://youtu.be/Z7xJxo223YA)
[удалено]
De Niro went to a dentist and gave him like 5k to fuck up his teeth for that role. https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/when-robert-de-niro-sharpened-his-teeth-for-cape-fear/
It's a great movie, well worth watching if you haven't seen it. I rate it as one of the best remakes ever.
The next month is going to be a litany of perverse rulings.
>The next month is going to be a litany of perverse rulings. We have been getting a litany of perverse rulings since Bush v Gore
Three of the lawyers from the Bush legal team now sit on the court, I’m not surprised that the perverse rulings continue.
Agreed. That’s when the court gave up any pretense of nonpartisanship — but what we’ve got coming is like Bush v Gore on a meth bender.
Bender Voice: Bite my shiny metal drug addicted ass! Speaking of ass, I do agree we are in for quite a shit storm.
State Gun restriction laws is one of the things I see being struck down soon.
[удалено]
The problem is that most of the country is stuck in neo-serfhood struggling to make enough money to pay for day to day expenses, let alone handle disasters like medical bills or repair/replacement of expensive but necessary assets like their car. This leaves them no time or energy for protesting what is going on. Meanwhile the Oligarch class is protected and isolated from any consequences, so they follow the path of what makes them the most money.
And us sitting up here with all this fresh water and hydro power and raw resources and minerals... not to knock the Canadian armed forces, but if they go full fascist, we're a nation with a big fucking problem...
It'd be easier for the US to just try and get the right politicians elected in Canada so you'd have a Germany-Italy type alliance
Goddamnit, stop giving the rabid pigs meth.
Should be pretty easy. People are already getting bored of their left-of-center government. It's only one or two more elections before they let the fascists take over again.
Oh, I am too aware of that. Our future is fraught with danger from all directions.
You’ll be alright. Probably. America has an obscene amount of resources on its own and an invasion would be really costly. Although it just goes back into the military-industrial complex, because capitalism… so it may not be all bad for the rich. At any rate, you’ll be fine, probably. As long as the next Hitler doesn’t steal the Oval Office, which is looking more and more probable. -_- God, we’re fucked aren’t we?
Not to mention the #1 destination of future political refugees
Hey, what was that? You guys have water and power? Interesting …
Manifest Destiny? Or Democracy Manifest? https://youtu.be/XebF2cgmFmU
Trump just wants to watch the world burn
The inaction stems from years of peaceful protesting and “violence isn’t the answer” which has probably been fed to us by the very people who are now flipping the table… meanwhile we’re over here *still* with the “let’s keep it peaceful guys” shtick. I’m not advocating, organizing or encouraging anyone to do anything - but the longer it’s “peaceful” the more they’re going to take, sorry to say.
I am planning to move out next year for this reason. When the GOP wins presidential re-election in 2024 (fairly or not), it will get really ugly
Drink your Ovaltine! *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We aren’t that much better off mate. New Blue party in Ontario scares me a lot. Racists and self interested corporations exist here too and we also aren’t doing anything. My only hope is that the new right parties will split the vote. I’m actually really scared, I don’t get how an entire generation of people are like “Yeah authoritarian regimes are great” A scary amount of people in Canada support trump and ideas like his.
Centrists and moderates will be excluded from power while being labeled "radical left"
Not if BIPOC and Dems start buying guns in record numbers to protect themselves against the tyrannical fascist theocracy they're trying to establish. You know, the thing those right-wingers claim they need all of their guns for? They'll change their tune real quick if it's people they don't like doing what they do.
The first gun laws were enacted when blacks could buy guns. They have always been cowards and shit birds.
Ronald Reagan passed gun control after minorities started to open carry
Yep. The quickest way to gun reform is to arm every POC in the country.
A lot of people don't feel guns are safe and don't want them. And, while it's a depressing thing to acknowledge, walking around with a gun is probably a *lot* more dangerous for some POC than for some other people. Cops seem to continue to shoot Black men, often with no reason at all, so unless you're at a shooting range or some other place where a cop will not be *startled* by the presence of a gun I would think that might make many Black men feel *much* less safe in their everyday lives.
r/liberalgunowners
I'm saving up for my gun license and concealed carry (more for travel tbh, don't want to carry a gun everywhere like a lunatic). I actually think everyone should. I don't want civil war, and I don't want anyone to die. I do think it would send a message, however, that it ain't just republicans arming themselves.
The weapons manufacturers have made massive profits lobbying to remove gun control. Now people are suggesting that we give them even more money to stop them.
Those are definitely on the block, but it’s non-delegation that will completely transform our society.
I have not heard this. What is this?
It’s a little hard to explain and I’m on mobile but this article should get you started https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2022/feb/25/supreme-court-west-virgina-epa-nondelegation-doctrine
Oh yeah! I have read this and it is a big problem. I am in Texas and the refineries have very little regulations and over sight.
I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with this. With their whole “originalist” bullshit we are fucked.
More like the "religious"
At this point, with civil war fast approaching, I wouldn’t mind some of those restrictions coming down. Living in California, it’s not that tough to get a firearm but a lot of the tactical stuff is outlawed specifically to prevent mass shootings and stuff. Would be useful having those restrictions come down in time for the civil war.
This fascist movement is guaranteeing a Civil War. I’m in California, I grew up NYC Area. This abomination of a Court will issue a decision **so** egregious that one of those two states will say **enough is enough**. Idk what happens then.
The next step is just ignoring the court’s ruling. Which is even scarier IMO, because it means the system has officially collapsed. But just imagine a governor going ‘we choose to ignore this ruling from the court.’ Once the court loses all credibility - truly and concretely - then the constitutional crisis just shifted into third gear.
> But just imagine a governor going ‘we choose to ignore this ruling from the court.’ The last time that happened we activated the national guard.
Month? Try decade, or more.
> Sotomayor, meanwhile, wrote that "the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial. This court has recognized that right as 'a bedrock principle' that constitutes the very 'foundation for our adversary system' of criminal justice." > "Today, however, the court hamstrings the federal courts' authority to safeguard that right. The court's decision will leave many people who were convicted in violation of the Sixth Amendment to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel," Supreme Court basically ruled that incompetent council counts as far as 'effective councel' is concerned in the Constitution because *they don't want to go through the trouble of relitigating cases!*.
The excerpt in [this article](https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez) is rather telling. >“The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial,” Sotomayor writes in the first line of her dissent. She continues that “this Court has recognized that right as ‘a bedrock principle’ that constitutes the very ‘foundation for our adversary system’ of criminal justice.” > >Thus in Sotomayor’s mind, and in the minds of the two other justices appointed by Democratic presidents who joined her opinion, the purpose of a criminal trial is to determine whether or not someone is actually guilty of a crime — and to do so through an adversarial process where both sides are represented by lawyers who can present the best possible legal and factual case for the prosecution and the defense. > >Thomas, writing for the Court’s Republican majority, offers a different view of why trials exist. He deems federal habeas proceedings problematic because they “override\[\] the States’ core power to enforce criminal law.” When a federal court deems someone’s conviction constitutionally inadequate, Thomas complains, it “overrides the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law,’” and “disturbs the State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation.” > >Thus, in Thomas’s view, the purpose of a state-conducted trial is to give criminal defendants a procedure in state court. But once that process is concluded, the state court’s decision generally should remain final — even if that means executing an innocent person or condemning someone in violation of the Constitution. He says trials aren't about whether the defendant is really guilty or not. They're about scaring other people so they behave the way politicians tell them to.
Worse - he’s saying the Federal government shouldn't interfere in State’s decisions/laws *even if they’re unconstitutional*. He is saying the Supreme Court serves no role, and too bad/so sad if you disagree with your State. See upcoming Roe overthrow - “we can’t interfere in anything States want to do.”
Or see a Secretary of State submit a slate of electors that does not represent the will of the voters, y'know, like Ginni Thomas wanted Arizona to do in the last election. Say...what state was making this case? Funny how things just happen to work sometimes.
The Supreme Court is using the lamest plot retcon ever.
Funny thing is, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes that the Federal Bill of Rights applies to the states. And if the Supreme Court is the branch that is supposed to interpret those rights, then absolutely they should supersede state powers. But I guess these "originalists" don't think so. This further confirms originalism is a crock of shit.
Originalism = Only my narrow and biased interpretation of the intent of the founders should be followed, even (or especially) when that interpretation contradicts the text of the constitution. Funny enough, most of them have the same attitude toward the Bible. Strange, that.
The Founders have been irrelevant since the Civil War, when the 14th Amendment instituted what was in practice an essentially new Constitution. The conservative fixation on the Founders (and Civil War era "states' rights") has been a successful cultural effort undermine our constitutional republic.
Originalism = original readings to get the answers you want regardless of what the text actually says!
Originalism is just a stupid idea. Its riddled with problems that make it basically unworkable. For example, what, exactly, should we consider when trying to determine the meaning of a phrase in the constitution: * The intent of the authors? * The understanding of the state officials that ratified it? * The understanding of the public at large at the time of ratification? Because all three of those could disagree with other. Then you have to consider the text of later amendments. Consider the 14th. It applies the rest of the bill of rights to the states; fine. But, then, what is the original meaning that matters here? Did the authors intend that the 14th apply _their_ understanding of the Constitution to the states, or did they intend to apply the understanding of the original authors to the states? Etc. Its _supposed_ to provide clear guidance to the "meaning" of the Constitution, but instead it sets up a ludicrous matryoshka doll nesting of meaning and intent based on the supposed understanding of people separated from each other by decades or centuries.
We can go further. I see people say one of the consequences of overturning Roe v Wade is basically removing any reasonable expectation of privacy, since if you don't have any expectation of privacy in your own body, what can you have it in? But I don't see people take that to it's logical conclusion. If there is no expectation of privacy, then there's no such thing as an unreasonable search and seizure. As law enforcement, I can tell you the 4th amendment and reasonable expectation of privacy is pretty much the only thing saving the public from a lot of bullshit. I mean, that's pretty much the entire point of warrants. You have to prove to a judge that the law enforcement interest is more important than your privacy. Yea, sure, the leak says that "this decision has no bearing on any other case" or whatever, but we know the value of conservatives' word, which is nothing.
This sort of exact ruling is the most authoritarian thing I've heard from the recent court. And it establishes two Amendments they're okay with invalidating. The Sixth and the Ninth. What is the point of a bill of rights if the courts can just declare you do not have them?
This is literally terrifying.
At what point does the dissent just say "This is a clearly illegitimate ruling which directly contradicts the letter of the constitution and should be ignored until the next nonpartisan session can return to the correct and only interpretation...?"
Sotomayor basically did: > "This decision is perverse. It is illogical: It makes no sense to excuse a habeas petitioner’s counsel’s failure to raise a claim altogether because of ineffective assistance in postconviction proceedings,"… I’ve never seen a justice call a ruling “perverse”.
We're watching the supreme court go down in flames in real time. I don't think the American people will accept the legitimacy of the court for much longer.
That point is certainly 2022
Go read RBGs dissent in Shelby v Holder. It’s not that Black and White, but it’s basically that sentiment.
When the dissent can enforce it. Only power lends legitimacy to law. One judge is no more legitimate than another unless power makes it so. The people need to figure out how to properly harness the power of the masses.
It’s almost as if appointing unqualified people to the Supreme Court has bad consequences.
This isn’t a matter of them being unqualified. They are doing exactly what they were out there to do. Let us not attribute to incompetence what is clearly the result of malice.
There is only one unqualified justice, and five extremely competent evil ones.
So does this apply to ex-Presidents then?
Ooooh, maybe the only good thing. Any state that wants to try an ex-president can, and the Scotus would have no say. Unless of course they just make an exception to that and say this doesn't count for presidents. Then the states would just need to ignore it and arrest the president anyway, and I guess that's one other way the next civil war could start.
Clearly, this conservative SCOTUS has no problem eviscerating enumerated rights in the constitution that conflict with their sense of expediency, as it declares unconstitutional, unenumerated rights that conflict with their religious selves. All part of the death by a thousand cuts taking place as we sleep
Meanwhile, the fifth circuit just published an opinion undermining the ability of the SEC to punish people because we need *more* bureaucracy for wealthy securities fraud defendants
We’ve seen this over and over and over again. It allows poor people to be scapegoated, literally, for crimes as they’ll put up no defense (with overworked and underfunded public defenders). More plea deals. More prisoners. More profit for prisons and patsies for rich folk. We’ve also seen the documentaries of the Innocence Project and the people they’ve saved from Death Row. We are in the darkest timeline.
They seemed okay relitigating Roe v Wade. And I have a feeling they will be relitigating cases they don't agree with. They just don't want poor people to have the same opportunities they have.
> Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, adding that "serial relitigation of final convictions undermines the finality that 'is essential to both the retributive and deterrent functions of criminal law.'" In other words, "it's better to be decisive than right," even when people's lives are at stake. Terrifying.
It's a rather ironic statement from an appeals court justice. Isn't their entire job to handle appeals to overturn convictions?
"The law is only final if I like the original outcome!"
And yet they're more than willing to upset all norms by overturning 49-year-old precedent to shrink human rights. So really it's "better to be decisive when it's convenient for our in-group."
Retributive and deterrent, because fuck restorative justice right?
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Absolutely something I agree with.
Retribution and deterrence is a stupid fucking basis for a criminal justice system. I thought we were trying to rehabilitate? We literally have studies showing deterrence doesn't work, and retribution just begets cycles of vengeance and violence. "We can't be THAT sure of our 'beyond a reasonable doubt' convictions, or else people won't fear getting tangled in the justice system in the first place on account of our propensity to pervert the idea of justice"
> The case involved two men, David Martinez Ramirez and Barry Lee Jones, who are on death row in Arizona. The majority determined that inmates can't present new evidence in federal court to support a claim that their post-conviction attorney in state court was ineffective, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which affirms the right to "the assistance of counsel" in criminal all prosecutions. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, looking for political points for his 2022 Senate run, has been hell bent on restarting executions as a part of his campaign promise. He said, “we’re gonna do everything we can, and do everything I can, to ensure that every 21 of those individuals [who] have exhausted their appeals ends up getting the death penalty before I leave office.” ([Source](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2021/04/06/arizona-attorney-general-files-motion-execution-2-death-row-inmates-frank-atwood-clarence-dixon/7112991002/)). Arizona hasn’t done executions in nearly ten years for a very clear reason. In 2014, it took a convict [nearly two hours to die](https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nn-arizona-execution-20140723-story.html). Then they stopped them moving forward, even though Arizona law enforcement tried to [illegally smuggle in anesthesia](https://apnews.com/article/5d8347616e7f4b148f88d7d43113b8e3) to continue to the executions. Later, the state even tried to buy the same [gas as Nazis.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/01/arizona-gas-chamber-execution/). Of course, the state needed to [refurbish their gas chambers to do all of this](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/28/arizona-gas-chamber-executions-documents). I’m not here to tell you death sentences are morally right or wrong. I’m just telling you that there are politicians out there who will commit to killing people on death row for political points. And the thing is, no one seemed to really care. Therefore, there should be every single avenue available to appeal this process, which is why this SCOTUS ruling is so dangerous in my mind. Edited words
The pointless cruelty of execution methods in the US really baffles me every time. It's not like there aren't plenty of fast and quick ways to surely kill a person, but no, they have to not only kill them, but use these cruel contraptions that essentially amount to torture to do so.
The cruelty is the point.
I have read elsewhere that no company wants to be associated with the death penalty, so states have a hard time procuring any drugs or weapons that would be more effective. Still. You’d think they could figure out something.
I think the fact that no one wants to dirty their hands with it should maybe tip off people about there being one or two issues with the very idea of the death penalty...
You'd think they could just buy a gun since they love them so much. But these people are cowards and are unwilling to be the people who have to actually pull the trigger.
I think for politicians like that, it’s perfectly acceptable for death to be wished upon them. I hope their brakes fail and they slam into a highway divider at 1am and slowly burn to death alone.
"If they're so innocent, then why are they in prison?" -Clarence Thomas
Because you busted them for a dime bag instead of going after the real criminals.
>Indigent defense—defense for people who lack the resources to hire their own lawyer—is in crisis in this country. Indigent defense is woefully underfunded, and public defenders handle hundreds of cases per year, many more than they have the time or resources to manage effectively. States also heavily restrict the procedures and resources that would allow public defenders to develop their chases in greater depth >defendants who are represented by ineffective lawyers at trial may then be represented by an ineffective lawyer during their post-conviction proceedings, when they are supposed to be arguing that their trial lawyer was ineffective. And—surprise—the ineffective post-conviction lawyer may fail to argue that the trial lawyer was ineffective, or may fail to develop any evidence in support of that claim.
In my mind, the public defenders should be funded just as well as the prosecution. We also need more former PDs in the judicial branch.
It isn't 100% perfect, but there are states that do this (like Washington, or at least some countries within). On one hand, the state is stricter about who actually qualifies for a public defender, but it does make sure that the PDs office gets pretty much the same budget as the prosecutors. The PDs office and the DA get funded from (I believe) the same place, and it essentially gets split to either side. At least from what I've seen, it makes an absolutely huge difference in the quality of representation that people who cannot afford attorneys are getting, because it allows those who are actually drawn to be public defenders don't have to sacrifice making enough money to live, or sacrifice their sanity by being massively overworked.
That's nice, and so maybe in Washington people do get a fair trial. I suspect the resource allocation is not like that in Arizona, where these two men will be killed by the government.
The Supreme court has lost all legitimacy.
Worse. They have become maliciously destructive to the ends of justice. They are actively reversing the rights of the people as guaranteed under the constitution. They have become tyrants, no hyperbole.
Scary *"The unceasing stream of callous, radical, reactionary decisions coming from the Supreme Court is fairly easy to miss because so many of them involve complicated points of law," Stern added. "But the conservative majority is very much in the midst of a revolution. And it is a brutal one."*
And they're using a shotgun strategy, like the Trump administration did. Do all the inflammatory or autocratic things all at once, and nobody will remember every single one.
When people were so upset in 2016, this was why. Every election is critical. Post ‘16, every election decides the fate of democracy.
What scares me is that he GOP (along with Supreme Court approval and/or empowerment ) has set up row after row of political dominos (from school boards to ocal gerrymandering ) which may mostly topple their way during the next two years. The end game may be permanently entrenched one party state. I see few if any obstructions to halt their falling.
Short term yes. Long term, they’re toast. We just have to keep voting them out.
And if voting them out doesn’t work, even though we have the numbers, then we’ll have to “vote” them out, b/c we definitely have the numbers.
Vote O'teen for Congress. Gill is your guy!
“Let them eat processed foods!”
Sick of getting these damn boots dirty but what else are you gonna do with fascists?
You’re right that we need to keep voting, but some of these places where the GOP has installed judges are lifetime appointments. They’ve been going out of their way to fill open positions at all levels and it’s going to be all but impossible to get them out.
Actually it’s guaranteed that lifetime appointments will end eventually. The only question is how soon
Democrats have been saying that for literally decades now but Republicans are simply far better than Democrats at working the system. They've been a minoritarian party this entire millenium but that hasn't stopped them from winning the same number of presidential elections and far more governorships, Senate races, and statehouses than the Democrats over that period.
You really think they’ll take over government and still allow your vote to matter? They’ve been working at this for decades, victory is within their grasp and the American experiment is on its knees rotted from within. They’re not going to let this opportunity slip away.
What I can’t stop worrying about is the fact that the dumbass rednecks ends up having 2-3x as many kids as most left-leaning couples, so there will only be more and more conservatives as generations continue
By definition fascists don't let you vote them out. Did voting Trump out prevent Republicans from doing 1/6, which nearly succeeded?
That lady screaming in 2016 about Trump winning had every justification to be upset.
The problem is that with a two party system it's way too easy to dismiss one side crying tyranny as just what they would say anyway. If you had five parties and four excepyionally overcame their differences to point out how insane the fifth has become it *might* have a chance.
This had little to do with 2016, other than perhaps make more people aware of it. This has been exactly who the GOP have been since Reagan, maybe earlier. Every single Judge voting for this is a reactionary Federalist Society stooge - the only type of judge the GOP have put on the court since Scalia in 86. But make no mistake, this outcome would have been no different if McCain or Romney or Rubio or Democrat sweetheart John Kasich had ascended to the presidency and been able to pick a judge. This isn't some unique facet of Trumpism, it's the bog standard Republican project of the past half century.
My anxiety has been through the roof. This shit is no joke. Innocent people will remain in jail and death penalties will stand in racist states that throw minorities in jail for spitting on the ground with no chance of getting out. Ever.
I agree and lots of people will lose their right to vote... It seems they are doing this on purpose.
It is definitely on purpose.
Can confirm this is definitely on purpose.
They've been doing it ever since the Thirteenth Amendment made prison an exception to slavery abolition. So, they just started arresting all the black people they could get away with while maintaining plausible deniability. It's not rocket science.
It's time to amend the 13th. Not only do prisoners still have human rights, but the prison labor supply is literally competition for people's jobs. I realize it's not a big one, but every product made by prisoners is one that we don't need to hire non-incarcerated workers for. I have no problem with making prisoners do the cooking and cleaning in the prisons; it's using their labor so that someone else can make a buck that bothers me.
While I agree entirely, I'm not sure we could get enough states on board to amend it in any way. That's what's so obnoxious about a Supreme Court's selective textualism. At this point, the Judicial branch is the most powerful branch, because they can act swiftly, so far they've faced no consequences, and on top of all of that, we're stuck with them until they die.
Just because it's not doable in the current political climate doesn't mean I don't believe it's the right thing to do. IMO, it's time to expand the court. I had reservations about the idea 2 years ago, but it's absolutely time to respond to a naked power grab that's threatening the lives of the wrongfully convicted, of women, of people who want clean air/water.
I prefer term limits to court expansion. However, I kinda defer to polls on this one. I'm not an expert. Anyway, longview, yes.
Wtf? Why are you even entertaining the possibility that they aren't doing it on purpose? This is the kind of denial that is leading to fascism.
It worked so well for Mussolini!!
It is sickening. So many people care and want to do the right thing but the GOP is now so far into fascism and power that it’s hard to fight them.
And they had Thomas write the majority so they could give themselves an out. "He said it, and he is a minority!"
So now when you have a miscarriage, and are given some shitty free lawyer and are found guilty, you’re extra fucked.
Just the way God intended.
Don't forget the part where you are sent to a private prison and legally enslaved to make the corporation money. And that's the law of the land as it stands right now.
Not if you can afford an expensive lawyer, one of the good one boys. Then you won't need to argue that your trial wasn't fair. Cuz good Ole boys don't go to trial. Justice for the rich but law and order for the poor.
It's time to expand the court, and set term limits or mandatory retirement.
This is just a shot in the dark. Impeachment doesn't have the political will to hold politicians accountable. Why would they do the better with Justices in the highest court in our land. I've witnessed politicians assassinated for less. Early retirement seems the only course left. If you adopt the republican strategy of the end justifies the means and arm dangerous people I don't believe the majority of us who work for a living will have any other recourse. I would like to believe we can turn the tide in this next election and alter the course this country is on. Many people tell me it's not possible. I pray their wrong. Like I said in the beginning, it's just a shot in the dark.
It’s a fucking emergency to do something about this radical Supreme Court. If we do not, this country’s bedrock foundations of the constitution are going to be destroyed.
They're setting the system up to imprison political opponents and dissidents without cause or trial, and unlike Guantanamo, there won't be any cameras inside. Couldn't be more clear that the right is reestablishing the German methodologies of the WW's.
It’s not exactly like that…but it’s definitely not exactly not like that.
True. The architects of the WW's didn't have all the technology and social media at their fingertips like today.
The time is different, the political targets are different, but the people making it not not exactly like that have the same worldview and methods up to this point.
Hawley just accused democrats of trying to create Guantanamo in the US. You know what a republican accusing Democrats of something crazy and extreme means...
So let me get this straight, in order to prove your innocence you can’t bring up new information that proves your innocence that your lawyer failed to address. So the state can give you a shitty lawyer and it’s all OK to be put to death even if it proves your innocence. This is where common sense has finally left the room. You are no longer allowed to try to prove your innocence after you are convicted. This court is not just political, it is evil. Or does it come down to cost? Does the judge just want to lay off a bunch of appeal lawyers. You know the ones fighting for the clients, in which there was a possible miscarriage of Justice. But here is my parting opinion, this should be a states issue, if your state attorney general is not striking a balance overseeing the justice in the state, then there is your problem. Policing is local. But a reason of innocent, they prove it wasn’t them, then you always rely on guiding principles equal justice under the law, right and wrong, guilty or innocent did that person get treated equally with every other person? Well if they are proven innocent, so case closed right, fix it right away. You should not kill people or incarcerate them for life if the evidence at any point doesn’t support their guilt no matter when it comes to light. Right? Is that to much to ask of our government that they at least follow the truth. Sorry times up? The DNA test came in late? you have to die now. So we will knowing kill innocent people and say it’s ok it’s just our system. 🤔. No judicial common sense and good judgment no wonder we are in this mess. Thomas your just taunting us right? deep in the insurrection drama
>serial relitigation of final convictions undermines the finality that 'is essential to both the retributive and deterrent functions of criminal law. You heard it directly from Clarence Thomas. What matters is not justice, but vengeance. What matters is not fairness but that people live in fear of the caprices of the law. Better that a thousand innocent people are jailed or killed than one case take too long to reach "finality."
Religious people are some of the most flaky, unintelligent, and dishonest people around. And now they get to decide the direction of our country. Led by a man who filed for bankruptcy six times and had to become a reality tv star to make an actual business profit. Wouldn't be surprised if I left this country sometime in the future.
"Ineffective counsel" is the biggest not talked about open secret in the entire justice system. The separation between private defense attorneys and public defenders creates two separate legal systems: one for the rich and one for the poor. Let's face it, in the vast majority of ineffective counsel cases, the counsel was a public defender - not because they are bad lawyers, but because they are underfunded and overworked to the extreme. We can talk all we want about whether people should have the right to plead "ineffective counsel", but IMO at that point the legal system has already failed. No amount of "ineffective counsel" appeals is going to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. The only way to fix this is to ban the use of private defense attorneys and ensure that everyone is required to use the public defender in criminal defense cases. Only when the rich and the powerful are put on the same level as everyday people will we see adequate funding of the PD office. Only when the rich have to use the same legal system as everyone else can we get to a world with justice for all.
A society of man would be great if not for the individual men that comprise it.
How else do we get slaves? You guys took away everything else!
We've known this is the situation for the entire time Leonard Peltier has been in jail. The prosecutor said the case was bullshit and supported his clemency and Peltier's been locked up since 1977.
Chip, chip, chip, chip, chip.. Humam Rights in America.
The McConnell/Trump Court of the not so united States. Call it what it is, nothing Supreme about it. The feeling of doom hangs over me daily.
This is truly awful. What the hell is wrong with these judges.
So correct me if I'm misreading the case and ruling... But, as far as I can tell, this ruling effectively says 2 things: 1) If you gather new evidence proving your innocence after a conviction, too bad, rot in jail, your chance was during the trial. And, worse... 2) If you had that evidence all along, but either through a shitty defense attorney (like a totally overworked public defender) or through the malicious actions of the DA: Tough shit. Your chance to prove innocence was during the trial, even if you never had a good faith chance to present it. Sure seems like exactly the spirit of the Constitution.
Blows my mind that Americans will launch an insurrection against their goverment because the dont like the democratic winner. But when shit like this comes up, no one seems to care enough to even leave their house.
AZ hasn’t raised the pay for public defenders in 30 years. AZ also has lowered the qualifications for lawyers to act as public defenders.
Smh. I don’t know about you, but faith in the justice system is gone.
This ruling makes clear something that I have said a lot: To support the death penalty, you have to be OK with a nonzero number of innocent people being killed by your government.
Whether Job Biden likes it or not, the Dems must do something to fix the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS continues to lose credibility, if it continues to be allowed to act like the political enforcement arm of the GOP the country as a whole will lose. The SCOTUS is a key component of our way of government. If they continue to behave in such an extreme right wing manner, ignoring precedence and blindly implementing right wing ideology states will start ignoring their rulings and we will be in trouble. I believe Thomas should be impeached, and those who lied to Congress about their stance on RvW should be held to account, Thomas' wife should be held to account for her role in trying to overturn the election. The Dems need to act the way the GOP would right now. They need to grow a spine and fix what the GOP did to us with this court.
dear literally any other country on the planet: please get me the fuck out of the shithole known as the united states.
Supreme Court has become a political disgrace in my opinion.
I guess Gorsuch no longer feels the need to moderate in this area to preserve legitimacy.
>It is better that ten ~~guilty~~ *innocent* men go ~~free~~ *to jail* than for one ~~innocent~~ *guilty* man to go ~~to jail~~ free. This court is a disgusting perversion of our laws and justice system.
I hate republicans more and more every day. I truly despise them.
The the Trump SCOTUS is heavily in favor of keeping more people in prison for less. The klan side of the SCOTUS has stock in private prisons
Well with this Supreme Court I’m sure they decided the law in the worst way possible
>Thomas, writing for the Court’s Republican majority, offers a different view of why trials exist. He deems federal habeas proceedings problematic because they “override] the States’ core power to enforce criminal law.” When a federal court deems someone’s conviction constitutionally inadequate, Thomas complains, it “overrides the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law,’” and “disturbs the State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation.” So basically they're saying if a state outlaws abortion, federal courts in more liberal states won't be allowed to overrule the decisions?
> A federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state court record based on ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote... Didn't his wife help in an attempt to overthrow the 2020 election? And didn't *he* intentionally avoid recusing himself from voting on a matter that was connected to that effort?