Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are anti every defendant being able to have counsel, even if they cannot afford one

[butters]

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/deadlinewhitehouse/blog/rcna75535

By Jordan Rubin
On March 18, 1963, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that guaranteed criminal defendants the right to counsel. It’s a right that people may take for granted today. That’s all the more important because Justice Clarence Thomas has directly called the precedent into question.

That crucial ruling, Gideon v. Wainwright, came 60 years ago this weekend. It said in part:

Not only these precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth.

It’s difficult to argue with that commonsense notion. But alas, Thomas has tried.

In an opinion column published by MSNBC's website on March 19, legal blogger Jordan Rubin explains, "In a 2019 dissent, in which he was joined by Donald Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, Thomas wrote that the justices who decided Gideon decades ago didn't attempt 'to square the expansive rights they recognized with the original meaning of' the Constitution. Of course, we've seen this GOP Court trample rights under the guise of originalism. And while this was only two justices calling Gideon into question, we've learned that precedent only means what the Court's current majority wants it to mean. I recently noted the irony of Thomas and Gorsuch wanting to revisit a landmark defamation precedent, given that doing so could hurt Fox News."

given the rightist leanings of SCOTUS today, this, too, could come under attack.
having said that, i think it might sign a death warrant for SCOTUS if they did repeal this right since so many are familiar with it, and the whole Miranda rights spiel as heard on tv shows often enough to make it a part of social awareness. When you add into the equation so many depend upon that right to counsel from the poorer magat quarters, there would, indeed, be uproar (imo) if thomas tried to lead the court down that road in an attempt to deny these established rights to those who need them the most.

You'd think the overturning of Roe.v.Wade would have done that, but since this applies (by the numbers) even more to men than to women, the backlash would be greater. Which isn't right, but reflects the state of the USA today.

 

[Bray123]

Nothing new here from the MAGA SCOTUS.
14th Amendment; that only applied to banning resurrectionists from running for office after the Civil War. It's been used up.
2nd Amendment; that didn't just apply to the War of Independence, it lasts for ever.

 

[Chernosoth]

Courts will eventually find a way to work with less lawyers, or reduce the cost and time commitment of becoming lawyers, and have much shorter trials of all types.

 

[jomar]

Not to worry, ChatGPT passed the bar and can step in as public defender