Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mahatmakanejeeves

(60,929 posts)
Wed Feb 27, 2019, 08:01 PM Feb 2019

Thomas attacks the right of indigent criminal defendants to have counsel provided

TVLawyerHat Retweeted

Last week, Justice Thomas called into question one of #SCOTUS's most important First Amendment rulings. Today, he attacks the right of indigent criminal defendants to have counsel provided for them:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf

And Justice Gorsuch (but not Justice Alito) joined him.



"history proves that the States and Federal Government are capable of making the policy determinations necessary to assign public resources to appointed counsel."

Meanwhile in Louisiana:



-- -- --

Scroll down to page 18 of the dissent. It's the last page.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf

GARZA v. IDAHO
THOMAS, J., dissenting

... and the Judiciary. History proves that the States and the Federal Government are capable of making the policy determinations necessary to assign public resources for appointed counsel. The Court has acknowledged as much. Betts, 316 U. S., at 471 (declining to extend the right to counsel to the States because “the matter has generally been deemed one of legislative policy”). Before the Court decided Gideon, the Court noted that “most of the States have by legislation authorized or even required the courts to assign counsel for the defense of indigent and unrepresented prisoners. As to capital cases, all the States so provide. Thirty-four States so provide for felonies and 28 for misdemeanors.” Bute, 333 U. S., at 663 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is beyond our constitutionally prescribed role to make these policy choices ourselves. Even if we adhere to this line of precedents, our dubious authority in this area should give us pause before we extend these precedents further.

——————
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thomas attacks the right of indigent criminal defendants to have counsel provided (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2019 OP
Not Alito, that's a step up! elleng Feb 2019 #1
The vote was 6-3 in Garza... Princess Turandot Feb 2019 #2

Princess Turandot

(4,824 posts)
2. The vote was 6-3 in Garza...
Wed Feb 27, 2019, 08:26 PM
Feb 2019

Alito voted with CT and Gorsuch, and did join CT's dissent in 1 and 2 out of 3 parts. (The 3rd part appears to be general bloviating.) I'm not sure why he worded his tweet that way.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Civil Liberties»Thomas attacks the right ...