Tuesday February 11, 2014, 12:50 am
When Republican here, Gary Zimmerman was on trial for murdering Trayvon Martin, Republicans were quick to point out how Zimmerman had the right to an aggressive defense, as they promised support for his appeals, if Zimmerman had been justly convicted. Although I remain firm in my opinion that Zimmerman is guilty, I certainly agree that he has a right to representation, because it is guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment. It appears that Republicans and I agree, but we do not. I believe the right is absolute. Republicans believe it is conditional. Consider this:
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 1:55 am
Everyone, regardless of what the have 'allegedly' done, ALL have the RIGHT to representation. But we all know what the Rethugs/Baggers/Fascists believe....that the constitution is only of, by and for them and the 1% and only them and not for all of us lowly peons out here. Damn, they make me ill.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 4:46 am
The very fact that Debo Adegbile "contributed to appeals" (nothing more, nothing less) of a convicted cop killer because he believes in the right of EVERY person to legal representation, makes him an outstanding candidate for the position of head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. But that of course is not what this is about. It is about finding anything at all to oppose any nomination by President Obama. Even if the GOP's argumentation goes against the constitution they claim to love so much.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 6:30 am
The weather has me cranky so I'm just going to say that in 50 years or so, all these stupid, bigoted butthole Republicans will be dead and the world will be much better off. And if it doesn't take 50 years, that's okay, too.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 6:50 am
Zim's anger leads us to think more worse of him as he continues along. Thinks his threats are the right thing. He is piling it up and looking pretty bad one at a time. The Pile is getting higher. He will fall right on him soon.
Thank you TomCat
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 8:11 am
Short answer: of course. They would deny anything and everything in the Constitution and/or the US Code if it served their purpose. Heck, there might even be a set of circumstances in which they would deny the SECOND Amendment, the only one they really care about.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 8:59 am
of course....they only care about the ones that benefit them and their desire to control US......and of course they don't even know how to understand the ones they do believe like #2.....
The GOP*ers are at the point where they deny their own denies ad infinitum...ad nauseum...the result of mainlining constant misinformation diet feeds into craniums. . .ergo cerebral deficits short circuit the neural pathways and all that regurgitation on cue becomes one grandiose deluge of nonsensical convoluted brain barf**
*GOP [GAH*PPuh]: a disease
**[credits to: TomCat's Barf Bag Alerts theme]
And a little one-liner relief for symptoms due to severe and acute GOP* ...
“How 'bout a shot of truth in that denial cocktail.” ― Jennifer Salaiz
“The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head.” ―Terry Pratchett
“If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.” ―Kurt Vonnegut
"When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases." ― Robert Anton Wilson
“You can't teach an old dogma new tricks.” ― Dorothy Parker
"Ignorance is no excuse, it's the real thing." ― Irene Peter
"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country." —Will Durant
 Symptoms: "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble [...] Like a hell-broth boil and bubble." ―(W.S. "The Bard of Avon")
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 9:21 am
It has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with President Obama and his selection – no document, however binding, however designed to be the founding ABC's upon which the country was founded, can interfere with the obstinancy and seditionist behavior the Republican party has chosen to follow!
As for Zimmerman, he is lauded by the Republican party for 2 reasons, namely, that he promotes the racism that runs rampant in the South, not only against people of color, but the President as well, and although guilty, he symbolizes the control that the NRA and gun advocates hope to maintain. The Constitution is a "convenient" piece of literature, if it promotes their issues, and that's as far as it goes.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 9:55 am
Justice for all or not at all is the scenario when it comes to representation and a lawyer's duty is legally and ethically to their client without regard to guilt or innocence--that is the foundation of our entire jurisprudence.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 10:17 am
I know people here don't seem to like it when I respond to a question from a Republican, but I am doing it because I have seen John outside the political arena and he doesn't appear to be the kind of person who refuses to listen to reason.
John S, can you site an example of this kind of reasoning (that you are saying Democrats have also been guilty of) for not allowing a Republican nomination? And, if you can, does that make it right for both Parties to do this? I would show outrage at either party for not allowing a nomination because the person did an extremely good job as a lawyer in upholding the law, even when that job was very difficult, morally, to do. Politics should not be based on high school like loyalties. I would hope that members of both political parties would show outrage to their own members if they did something like this. I know Democratic Party members do it. Can you, John, say the same about Republican Party members? Truthfully. Not out of loyalty to your party. I don't want to argue. I am a fact checking person. And I listen when facts are involved.
I've seen the outrageous lies coming from the extreme right about this man, and it just makes me sick that people who are committed to upholding the law of this country, and especially for those who do not have the money or position to acquire superior legal advice and representation, are attacked in the way they are attacking this man.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 11:19 am
We have, in this country perhaps more than any other, long considered the implications of the sixth amendment to our constitution, sacrosanct. So much so that as part of the code of legal ethics attorneys take upon admission to the bar, they, in many states, swear they will deny representation to no one, regardless the type of crime committed because as the sixth amendment states "...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." I guess they weren't big on spelling back then, or the spelling has changed, and of course, it was written in a time when women and persons of color were not considered people, legally. Though they certainly were prosecuted, the amendment speaks only to "his" defence.
Everyone is entitled to representation, and anyone with a modicum of respect for the law and our constitution would never attack any attorney for having given counsel to any defendant regardless the crime. This is not a society built upon the backs of lynch mobs but on the precept that everyone has the right to fair and just trial, how can this possibly be had if not all are allowed counsel? Or if, having given that counsel, one is to later be disqualified for having honored one's obligation to legal ethics from any job. The hypocrisy of this attack is beyond political gain, it repudiates the very constitution members of congress are sworn to uphold. Under this line of reasoning the worse the crime, the less right a defendant has to counsel. So a murderer can be swiftly convicted and killed, in many states, without benefit of counsel - wait, I do believe our Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, more than once and not sided with the republican party in its insistence that all have the absolute right to counsel, including free counsel, if indigent. Not that this has stopped the prosectutorial zeal in some states from providing such counsel from a pool of eminently unqualified persons - hence the overturning of so many convictions for incompetent defense counsel. Personally, I'd think the ranks of people deemed unfit for further occupation should include the likes of those who have defended the Bernie Madoff's of the world, or Enron, or any of the corporations who have done inestimable damage to people and our great land from BP to Tom Petters and back. One might also wonder if one looked into the backgrounds of members of Congress deeply enough if one might not find some of them had defended persons whose crimes would, under this idea, make them unworthy of sixth amendment protections. Hypocrisy thy name is republican. The party without morality, except that questionable kind it finds expedient to claim as they try to create a religious reich here in the land of the free. A pox on them all. Or is that too biblical for them?
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 12:22 pm
Many good comments but I commend Deb especially - Hillary hasn't even announced she will run in 2016 yet and already the GOP are busy vilifying her - they did this to John Kerry, they do this to anybody and everybody who stands in their way, including one of their own (when John McCain was running against GW). It's quite one thing to fight fair and quite another to fight dirty and dirty has become the norm for the Republicans. If we make them out to be villains, it's because they are. Not all, no, but the ones who hold the power, oh, yes.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 12:29 pm
This doesn't surprise me. The Repugs disagree with everything and everyone "Obama". They will eventually suffer from their ignorance and obstructionism when their party disintegrates!
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 12:49 pm
lee e., Your comment nailed it!!!
John S., you said: "How is this different from what democrats do when republicans nominate someone?" John, that is a very good question. Democrats have been known to stand in the way of a nomination too and sometimes unfairly. But here is the basic difference: Republicans, especially since Reagan have tended to oppose nominations based on pure political agendas while ignoring the nominee's actual qualifications. Democrats, on the other hand, generally oppose a nomination due to the person's ethics and/or qualifications. Never in our history have so many nominations been held up simply due to the fact that a black President nominated these highly qualified people. The main problem currently is the vile and despicable Tea Party which has severely damaged any reputation the GOP had.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 2:11 pm
Funny I thought he was called George Zimmerman, the Republicans took him to heart as he stood his ground and had a gun. Still, the hypocrisy started as they sort of forgot that Trayvon Martin had just as much right to stand his ground too. The attack on the sixth ammendment has a lot to do with the fact that there more than a few lawyers in the Republican party whose only qualification is that the difference between them and a bucket of fetid Dingo's kidneys is the bucket. It is like the Three Stooges looking at their antics it is not "America for Americans" but "Moronica for Morons". Also when Newt Gingrich did his contract on America he was wanting to tear up the constiution into a more Corporation friendly version, which in many societies would of resulted in his head being placed on top of a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some Political agendas come with too high a price.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 5:56 pm
You got it Tom: "Republicans would deny the Sixth Amendment, unless it is invoked on behalf of someone they support." I'm betting RepubliCONs would deny ANY right if the "wrong" people were using them! NO freedom of Speech for the radical Left, or minorities, Occupy Wall $treet, etc. Imagine if ALL the Occupy Wall $treeters were carrying guns? There would go the Reich-wing's Cherished 2nd Amendment too!
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 7:45 pm
There is no difference John. It's all politics and being a lefty or a righty makes no difference when it comes to the level to which they will stoop to have their way. And it is George, not Gary, a simple enough fact to get right.
Tuesday February 11, 2014, 10:13 pm
If Obama and the country are for it, the Republicans are against it. Yes, even the sixth amendment. Everyone is supposed to have legal representation, and that representation is required to do the best they can do for their client. I wouldn't want anything less.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
An inconvenient truth! Truth and equality under the law . . . concepts anathema to the Republicanus/Teabaggers . . . well unless one counts themselves amongst their numbers.