ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

The Smear Campaign Against Potential SCOTUS Nominee Jane Kelly Is an Attack on the Constitution

There are few constitutional provisions more important than the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to defense counsel. That civil liberty, which applies even for indigent defendants who can’t afford their own attorney, is the cornerstone of the United States criminal justice system and a critical component of due process. In the legal community, it’s understood that criticizing an attorney who defends an unpopular defendant—especially a public defender assigned to an impoverished client—is inappropriate, offensive, and unprofessional. Public defenders who represent disreputable defendants are fulfilling the requirements of the Constitution; to condemn them for doing so is, in a very real sense, to condemn the Sixth Amendment itself.

But in the brewing nomination fight over a replacement for Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, the Judicial Crisis Network has thrown that long-held understanding out the window. An arch-conservative group lobbying congressional Republicans to block any Obama nominee, the JCN has begun preemptively smearing names on the president’s Supreme Court shortlist. Recently, JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino penned a reprehensible article in National Review targeting Jane Kelly, a federal judge who previously served as a public defender and has been discussed as a potential Scalia replacement. Severino highlighted Kelly’s defense of Casey Frederiksen, a convicted child molester who was accused of child pornography possession. Kelly helped negotiate a plea deal for Frederiksen, in part by noting that his psychologist believed he was not a threat to society. In other words, she did her job. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

To many unanswered questions still remains in regards to Justice Scalia’s untimely death then quick embalming without autopsy. In the interest of justice and respect to the soon to be president we should IMO pause the process until after the November elections and allow the new president to add his respective candidate to the hearings. This would give we the people two choices to compare during the confirmation process. This way if Obama’s selection is confirmed he is not beholding to Obama nor to any party (technically they’re not anyway) but to the people. The next president might just agree… Read more »

You would want Trump to pick the next Justice? Trump would send us all to a camp within a very large fence. Justice Scalia was old and overweight, he probably died of natural causes. But no matter how he died, I don’t want to take the chance on our fate being in Trumps hands.

Quite right, Lake County. Trump will first build large internment camps (ICE jails not being big enough) to hold the 11 million illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. Then, once they’re gone, and with the camps already built, you know who they’ll come for next. And the populace will cheer.

Didn’t one of the SCOTUS justices once say there was nothing in the law to prevent another mass internment like what happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II?

Robert Curtis- Agree with ya. It’s like kids arguing over who gets to pitch and who gets to catch in a sand-lot baseball game. The Constitution does not say that Congress must appoint the nominee within any official time period. Naturally, those in power want to see a Justice appointed who follows their particular views. A good balance in the Supreme Court is really a good thing. If we had all Liberal or all Conservative leaning justices, that would make me very nervous. I can’t predict what’s next. Conservative House and Senate and a Liberal POTUS and look what they… Read more »

It is called separation of powers. One branch should not hinder the legitimate functioning of another branch of government. There is no longer a balance of powers. The Congress wants to run the other two branches, instead of playing their part. Heck, we have Chris Smith taking on the job of Secretary of State, lobbying Helsinki to sell the Registry to Europe. This government is falling apart.

Well, in their defense, you notice Congress was placed in Article I, but instead the Article II person has become the centerpiece of centralized power.

I think the Supreme court is now nothing more the a nine member wing of the Congress and the judges are “elected” by whatever party has the majority on the sole grounds of party orthodoxy, not on their ability to apply the Constitution impartially.

My sentiments exactly. Superior court judges should be chosen by their proven ability and integrity to interpret the ORIGINAL intent of the Constitution of the United States as it applies to any law, regardless of political persuasions.

Writer Mark Joseph Stern of Slate.com is right on point that the Constitution demands it..commands it that every person has the right of attorney.
Good article defending the Constitution. Its Mr.Stern and Slate.com . Good articles.

Found this article very interesting about the lack of criminal defense justices on the supreme court

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11306422/supreme-court-prosecutors-career

10
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.