The Dims

Quote: missedhervee

Again...if you throw freshly minted law school grads into the public defender meat grinder the results will be ineffective assistance of counsel.

As for "hiring" them: the issue is the counties who hire and fund public defense contracts are unwilling and / or often unable to pay what the targeted attorneys are requesting.

Guess what? That describes what almost any college grad goes thru at the entry level. Public Defender is historically a "make your bones" position.

Quote:

I frankly see no need or "right" to publicly funded court appointed lawyers; certainly I don't want to use my tax dollars to fund the defense of some humeless piece of shit who stabs his buddy in a drug-fueled frenzy.

SCOTUS would disagree with you.

Quote:

Nor is it fair to require attorneys to represent indigents if the attorney objects to doing so: most of us went to law school hoping to "change the world," and by that i mean change our own world financially, i.e. making seriously good money: public defenders never make really good money; a few work like dogs but most get burned out and work sort of half-assed, just going through the motions, defeated after leaving the gate.

This gets murky. Law is a sort of "club" where you agree to behave a certain way and do certain things to uphold the honor of the system. I can see a requirement of say 40 hours a year, one work week or 2% of your time, given to providing legal services for indigent peoples. It need not be criminal law, it could be helping in family law for an example. Not totally like some other professional professions.

Yeah, the USSC created the right sixty or so years ago but they leave it up to the states, counties and local governments to pay most of the cost.

Some federal monies were thrown at the problem but I bet all or part of that was done away with by Trump: it seems he wants the feds to do and pay less and have the states pick up the slack.

Nice in principle, but how can the states easily afford to pay the higher expenses if the feds no longer contribute as they did?

Gotta think the quality of public defenders is much worse in the poor counties than in the rich ones.

Quote: missedhervee

Yeah, the USSC created the right sixty or so years ago but they leave it up to the states, counties and local governments to pay most of the cost.

Local courts so their responsibility.

Quote:

Some federal monies were thrown at the problem but I bet all or part of that was done away with by Trump: it seems he wants the feds to do and pay less and have the states pick up the slack.

We eagerly await any proof of this other than you running your TDS mouth.

Quote: AZDuffman

Local courts so their responsibility.



We eagerly await any proof of this other than you running your TDS mouth.

This is not an example of TDS. But I see nothing wrong with having the states be responsible for local costs of their local justice systems.
As far as the quality of the representation, there is no guarantee of ‘the best ‘ lawyer, only that ‘if you can’t afford one, a lawyer will be provided to you’. I assume there are some minimum requirements that one must have to be a public defender, and that those hired meet those minimum standards.
Some drive Porsche’s. Some drive Yugo’s. All must pass inspection.

Quote: AZDuffman

We eagerly await any proof of this other than you running your TDS mouth.

I didn't read the entire 900 or so pages of the BBB so I do not know what it may have said, if anything, about continuing to help the counties and states pay for court appointed lawyers, but given the fact that Trump's stated focus is to decrease federal expenditures and shift them to the states I wouldn't be surprised if some changes were made.

What, you didn't realize Trump favors decentralization?

Quote: missedhervee

I didn't read the entire 900 or so pages of the BBB so I do not know what it may have said, if anything, about continuing to help the counties and states pay for court appointed lawyers, but given the fact that Trump's stated focus is to decrease federal expenditures and shift them to the states I wouldn't be surprised if some changes were made.

IOW, you are just making the idea up.

Saw a clip from some kind of Democrat convention, and if this is what they plan well Vance will win 51 states with the Dems just taking DC.

One woman says her name then "my pronouns are......."

Who does that kind of thing?

Talk about a "climate disaster" though that has been moved back to 2026 or 2027 now.

I am starting to wonder if AOC is going to run and have an abortion she makes into a news event to get publicity.

Quote: AZDuffman

IOW, you are just making the idea up.

Not at all.

I made that prediction based on what I've seen the oaf do and say to date.

Hello, deductive reasoning.

Quote: missedhervee

Not at all.

I made that prediction based on what I've seen the oaf do and say to date.

Hello, deductive reasoning.

So, like you said, you made it up.

I get that you like waste but you need actual evidence to go on.

Quote: AZDuffman

So, like you said, you made it up.

I get that you like waste but you need actual evidence to go on.

You're such a tool.

Read it and weep.

per google...

"The Trump administration has proposed eliminating funding for the LSC, the largest funder of civil legal aid in the U.S., in its Fiscal Year 2026 budget request. In FY25, LSC received $560 million through a continuing resolution signed by President Trump, which was flat funding from FY24 levels. Defunding LSC would significantly reduce civil legal aid available to low-income Americans, potentially impacting the number of people who can access legal assistance, including for matters where they might otherwise be unable to afford an attorney.
Cuts to other legal aid programs: The Trump administration also partially cut a legal aid program that funds immigration attorneys for individuals facing deportation and deemed mentally incompetent."

My deductive prediction was 100% spot on.