"RIGHT" TO COUNSEL?

4--3--2001

The Supreme Court, albeit narrowly, made one of their "slightly" good decisions. The decision is just "slightly" good because it merely curtails further erosion of common sense while failing to address the real issue.

The justices declared that the so-called constitutional "right" to counsel mentioned in 6th Amendment, did not restrict police from questioning a suspect if his lawyer from some other case or other criminal charge was not present. Naturally, ACLU, liberals, and the criminal defense bar whined and complained obnoxiously.

But the real issue is that the "right" to counsel was never intended to be a "requirement" for the government - read that as "the rest of us" - to provide a lawyer for someone in any legal proceedings. The whole idea is nonsense and is the true matter of significance that their mighty majesties on the supreme bench totally ignored. After all they are, unfortunately, lawyers themselves.

We have "rights" to travel, to freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, to be secure in our homes from unlawful search and seizure. But none of that is interpreted by anyone with an IQ over 20 as requiring the government - read that as "the rest of us" - to provide - read that "to pay for" - the means for travel, the words to speak freely, religions to worship, arms to carry, or homes from which we may be free of unlawful search or seizure. The amendment was intended for allowing a defendant to have someone to advise him if he so wished, and that primarily in a court of law, not every time anyone involved in law enforcement merely proceeds with ordinary daily duties.

Yet when it comes to lawyers, we are somehow supposed to be required to provide them for everyone who says he or she can't afford it. If our derailed legal system were not so corrupted by lawyers and judges, a lawyer would be a minor player in most legal proceedings anyway, since the search for truth would be a given rather than a game played on behalf of hired legal thugs.

Probably we should be grateful for even minor "saves" from still greater craziness, but the fact that it was a ruling of only 5 against 4 shows what fools we have running the legal show in this so-called "land of the free."