A Defender Office for Supreme Court Advocacy?

An “independent federal public defender office charged with representing poor defendants before the United States Supreme Court” is necessary to fill gaps in legal services to the poor and “better balance the scales of justice between the government and the defendants,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said earlier this month. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This sounds like a really good step.

Maybe Janice can say if it is. I am also curious if she were to get a case to SCOTUS, would she do it all herself since she is qualified, or would she still get assistance with someone that handles these cases all the time.

I know on a local court level, it absolutely sucks with our system where the same prosecutor sits in a certain judge’s court all day every day. That prosecutor ends up not only being “friendly” with the judge but learns what to say and do to get the judge to side with him. On my case and modifications I’ve requested to probation, my lawyer (or even lawyers) get requests shot down before any testimony can be heard by the prosecutor saying what he knows will work on the judge. In my case, the prosecutor actually lied about multiple probation department policies and since my lawyers weren’t prepared for that, they didn’t know what to say and the judge dismissed the request. Had I been allowed to talk, or even be near my lawyer to where I could tell him the real policies, I would have had a fighting chance.

Has anyone else had issues with a messed up system where the prosecutors have such a huge advantage over the 100’s of defense lawyers that go in front of a particular judge VS the one prosecutor?

The article mentions Senator Cory Booker (Democrat, New Jersey). He was the ONLY one who at least mentioned some of the problems of SB-2613, Adam Walsh reauthorization of 2016. It wasn’t much, but at least he had the courage to go on the record. Goggle: “Congressional Record, page S-3052, dated 5/23/16”.Then choose 3rd article “Adam Walsh reauth Bill”.

By the way: There will be NO July 27 celebration for John Walsh to attend. The House is sitting on SB-2613 till after Labor Day. Sorry, John.