It is indeed an odd business that it has taken this Court nearly two centuries to 'discover' a constitutional mandate to have counsel at a preliminary hearing.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional?
The work of deciding cases goes on every day in hundreds of courts throughout the land. Any judge, one might suppose, would find it easy to describe the process which he had followed a thousand times and more. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
We may have lured judges into roaming at large in the constitutional field.
But, I know enough people in that court, through the years, to know one thing: There's always somebody who surprises you, who rises above what they thought they appointed him for, and stays with the separation of powers, and with the right of the law to decide.
Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy.
As a former home secretary, I have access to and knowledge of the workings of the system in a way that individuals unfamiliar with the courts can never hope to have.
'Competent counsel' ought to require more than a human being with a law license and a pulse.
Cagey trial lawyers have figured out there's a pretty good likelihood their case - no matter what its merit - will literally get its day in court because of favorable judges.
I think the nine justices think the solicitor general is the 35th clerk.
It takes a long time to learn that a courtroom is the last place in the world for learning the truth.
No opposing quotes found.