
The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment - wcbeard10
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/11/11/the-supreme-court-could-soon-deliver-a-crushing-blow-to-the-sixth-amendment/
======
clavalle
>the court will decide whether the government can freeze all of a defendant’s
assets before trial, even those the government itself concedes aren’t tainted
by any connection to criminality, thus effectively preventing that defendant
from paying for his own defense.

The shadow issue of our time is equal access to the legal system. It will be
interesting to see how this changes the dynamic of the court system if the
Supreme Court really decides that defendants cannot hire their own counsel
though it is a bit like solving the equal access to education problem by
banning all private colleges -- more than a little absurd.

~~~
davidgay
> though it is a bit like solving the equal access to education problem by
> banning all private colleges -- more than a little absurd.

While one can definitely argue against this view, it's far from absurd: the
basic argument is that the availability of private college/lawyers/your-
favourite-resource favours the rich and powerful, and that you can only get
actual equal access for all to education/trial-defense/something-else if you
force the rich and powerful to have an equal playing field with everyone else
(at which point they will then use their power to ensure a decent/good level
of the service for everyone, including themselves).

Two fairly different, and likely overly generalised and simplified, examples
of this view: \- the British left-wing view of private (known as "public" in
Britain, to confuse us all) schools (vs state schools): they allow the
rich&powerful to get away with underfunding/neglecting the state school
system, as it doesn't actually affect them, their family or their friends'
family \- the Swiss view of public schools - paraphrasable as "Swiss private
schools are for foreigners" \- which more or less implies that using (or a
society needing) a private school is a moral failing ;) (ie the rich&powerful
will help fix the public schools rather than send their children to the
private one)

~~~
nemothekid
I'd argue that Swiss public schools being so "good" is a function of social
homogeneity and income equality, than it is one of forcing rich kids to attend
public schools.

The obvious counter example is the US, where public schooling is sectioned off
by neighborhood and rich kids still attend school together because they can
afford to live in their respective neighborhoods. Even worse, the US spends
more money per child on public teaching, and still has some dreadfully bad
public schools due to various inefficiencies.

In short, I think your assessment is backwards private college/lawyers/your-
favourite-resource don't favor the rich, instead the rich build private
college/lawyers/your-favourite-resource to favor themselves (or their
children).

~~~
gadders
>>The obvious counter example is the US, where public schooling is sectioned
off by neighborhood and rich kids still attend school together because they
can afford to live in their respective neighborhoods.

This happens in the UK too. People who are unwilling to send their children to
private school will instead move to a more expensive house because it is in
the catchment area of a good school. This is morally equivalent to using extra
money to sending your child to a private school.

~~~
vidarh
Certainly does.

Near us (South London) the price difference between a 2-3 bedroom house in
particularly good catchment area vs. an average one is at least 100,000
pounds, sometimes more...

Which makes it very clear that it's priced based on private school costs,
given that the private schools near here costs ~10k/year (huge variations, but
that's roughly it for 2-3 of the most popular ones)...

I've had the argument with my ex. over my sons school too. I had halfway given
in and agreed to send him private, but we ended up sending him to the local
school two doors down from me instead of 40-60 minutes travel to the nearest
suitable private school, thankfully. But we'll be having that argument again
over secondary school, I'm sure.

------
rayiner
Playing up the "equal access to justice" angle here is shortsighted. Rich
people have historically served as an important counterweight to government.
When the government prosecutes them, it raises special interests, beyond the
abstract interest in justice implicated whenever the government prosecutes
someone. After all, it was the new-money commercial interests that lead the
revolutions that gave us many of our modern democracies, including here in the
U.S. And history is littered with examples of rich, powerful people being
prosecuted precisely because of the threat they pose by virtue of their means.

An interesting example is Joseph Nacchio. While he was probably guilty of what
he was accused of doing, at least he was declared guilty after putting up the
best defense money could buy. Given the dynamics of the situation, it would've
been troubling if he hadn't been able to do that.

~~~
gohrt
Why don't poor people deserve to be a counterweight to government?

~~~
simonh
They do, but if they don't have that ability now then that's the problem we
should be addressing. Removing the ability of the rich to do so won't
magically give that ability to the poor.

If anyone here wants to argue that because the poor can't effectively fight
government then nobody should be allowed to 'because otherwise it isn't fair',
then please go ahead. But that's the logic of plucking out everyone's right
eye because one person suffered an eye injury. If your idea of fairness is
reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator, I want no part of it.

~~~
brbsix
I was looking around for a quote along these lines, but I think you've just
expressed it quite well: "Removing the ability of the rich to do so won't
magically give that ability to the poor."

It is quite easy to retard the success (or fill in the blank with legal
defense, assets, education, IQ) of a group or individual. However bringing
that success (or whatever) to another group is an entirely different sort of
challenge, a very difficult one. There are rarely shortcuts and the most
commonly suggested solutions often involve infringing on the rights of others.
People don't realize this and in the quest of solving social problems with
government intervention they end up creating even larger ones. Like you said,
it results in pandering to the lowest common denominator. You see this very
visibly with policies like "No Child Left Behind", but this sentiment tends to
run rampant in leftist schools of thought.

------
teekert
Scanning for 10 seconds, no sign of what the sixth amendment is, no way of
judging significance, moving on.

For those as annoyed:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment)

~~~
ghayes
> to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The author of the article believes this Supreme Court case weighs whether or
not the government can willfully deprive an accused of the ability to pay for
counsel by freezing untainted assets.

------
shawnee_
_This particular policy is aimed at people accused of bank fraud, insider
trading and other high-finance crimes._

There is indeed an entire group of self-proclaimed professionals that uses
asset-shifting tactics to

(1) avoid detection by systems that seek to detect fraud (2) operate a number
of legally "separate" but owned by the same group of people / businesses
operating in the same sphere

Small transactions among these entities might not raise a flag on their own,
but given the sum of them all, it can definitely help point an arrow to larger
schemes for market manipulation.

Freezing the liquidity of these complex legal structures for a temporary
period of time ... tracing the still-liquid "drip" (because the analogy is too
good to not use) back to the source does seem to be a logical way to suss out
the scum.

If you've ever invested in a growth company for "long", only to have your
investment diluted and eventually delisted by one of these private
enterprises, this reform should make you very happy.

[Edit] For example .... [http://sirf-online.org/2013/03/11/paper-world-of-
brookfield-...](http://sirf-online.org/2013/03/11/paper-world-of-brookfield-
asset-management/)

------
bayesianhorse
Maybe the public defender system may benefit, because when even wealthy or
middle-class defendants can't pay for their lawyers, more lawyers are forced
to either become public defenders or work on similar arguments, making
financial means of defendants less of a factor in choosing their clients.

~~~
omonra
Or fewer people will want to become lawyers.

Really thought this one through, I see :)

~~~
runevault
I don't understand why people continue to go into law in the numbers they do.
Everything I've seen over the last few years indicates the number of law jobs
being created/opening up due to retirement is far lower than the number of
people passing the bar every year. Considering how much it costs to go through
law school, it seems like an insane gamble unless you already have ins at a
significant law firm.

~~~
vidarh
See my other comment regarding the UK, where serving lawyers actually earn
less than the national average. So yes, it's a bit puzzling. On the other
hand, a law degree is a bit of a "I don't know what I'm going to do but this
will at least give me a firm backing" type of degree.

You can take a law degree and go into any number of professions such as jobs
in the police, human resources, journalism, areas of finance, all kinds of
compliance roles and oversight or strategic positions in-house in companies
etc. Basically you can treat being a qualified lawyer as having proven that
you're able to work hard, learn fast and pay excellent attention to detail,
which is often just as valuable or more as domain specific skills.

E.g. my ex recently went from one of the Magic Circle firms as a 2 year post
qualification lawyer (UK system for solicitors - for barristers (litigators)
it's slightly different - == 3 year law degree, 2 years training contract and
passing the legal practice course; the latter can be done as part of/during
training, especially if you get a contract with a top firm) to a director-
level human resources position at a major bank on the basis of being a
qualified solicitor with some lower level HR experience years ago, before her
degree. Her legal training is by far the most relevant to the role vs. HR
experience, given all the regulatory/compliance issues and general legal
issues an investment banks HR department has to deal with.

But certainly, going into law to work in a law-firm is far from lucrative for
most people.

(not that the overall cost is much lower in the UK,though: the law degree is a
first degree, and costs the same as any typical first degree, and if you get a
training contract the training is paid and many firms will then cover the cost
of the legal practice course as well; even if you don't get a training
contract before your LPC, it's possible to do the LPC for about GBP 5k I
think)

------
Laaw
Can't you just pay your defense attorney after the trial, guilty or not,
whenever your assets are unfrozen?

Assets frozen during trial that aren't linked to any criminal activity can't
be permanently confiscated, so your defense attorney can just settle up your
bill at the end of the trial, when the assets are unfrozen. Maybe that's not
how it works now, but if this happens, then defense firms will have to do
their billing this way.

Not ideal and I don't see the point, but how is this a big deal?

~~~
roel_v
What lawyer will take on such a case, when it's unsure if you'll ever get
paid, and if you do, it's years after the actual work is done? The first thing
you do after you've hired a lawyer is pay his advance. No small firm can
shoulder having to front cases that can drag on for years. It's not like you
can tell your staff 'yeah we'll pay you in a few years'. And when the client
is found guilty, the prosecutor will confiscate much of it. Good luck getting
paid then.

~~~
Laaw
It's not unsure (like I said, assets unrelated to the crime can't ultimately
be kept), and what else are they going to do? You can't seriously suggest all
criminal defense attorneys are just going to give up on their professions.

The _only_ thing extra you'd need as a criminal defense attorney is additional
capital to start up your firm, and only for actual criminal case work. They
have _plenty_ of money, enough to wait for some time for a payday.

It's actually _super_ common to wait years for payment in tons of industries,
including law.

~~~
roel_v
The vast majority of criminals have assets lower than their total penalties /
damages payable. You're basically asking lawyers to hope that their clients
will have enough money left after they have paid their damages? And you're
saying defense lawyers will do that because... what... otherwise they'd have
to find clients in other fields of law?

"It's actually super common to wait years for payment in tons of industries,
including law."

8| No it's not, except in law for cases on contingency basis. Which only make
sense in cases where there might be a huge settlement or punitive damages.
There are very few companies that can even afford to wait for their money for
years.

"They have plenty of money, enough to wait for some time for a payday."

I'm not sure if you're just trolling here? You seem to have a conception of
the economics of running small law offices (which is what the vast majority of
criminal defense lawyers are) that is massively detached from reality.

~~~
Laaw
I'm not asking lawyers to do anything, I'm saying law firms who do criminal
defense will not simply cease existing if this happens, which is what you're
implying.

------
Natsu
The Supreme Court only answers the questions posed to them, not the merits of
the underlying case, so the article's surprise that they're not addressing
anything else is a strange to hear from a lawyer. It's also surprising to hear
this as a "blow" to the Sixth Amendment, as the justices seem to believe
they've rejected exactly this logic before in Monsanto. [1] One good thing is
that the article hlepfully linked to a transcript of the hearing, a good
journalistic practice too often ignored. [2] In the quotes below I've elided
sections for clarity, as marked, primarily to remove where they repeated words
or such while speaking.

The case involves Sixth Amendment [3] claims regarding asset forfeiture where
Petitioner allegedly defrauded Medicare. The Deputy Solicitor General supports
freezing this money so that it doesn't become unavailable to pay back the
amount allegedly defrauded. Petitioner wants to use it to fund their legal
defense. They retained the services of Howard Srebnick, Esq. for this oral
argument. [4]

The argument in favor of the seizure is roughly this:

JUSTICE ALITO: [Two twin] brothers rob a bank. They get $10,000. They split it
up, $5,000 each. And on that very same day, it happens to be their birthday,
and their rich uncle comes and gives each of them $5,000 as a birthday
present. So they go out to party, and one of them ­­ and they both spend
$5,000 partying. One of them spends the money from the bank robbery. The other
one spends the money that was given to them by their rich uncle. And your
position is that the one who spent the money from the so­called "tainted
assets," the money from the bank robbery, is entitled to use the remaining
$5,000 to hire an attorney, but the other one is out of luck? MR. SREBNICK:
Yes [...] JUSTICE KENNEDY: So [...] you want this Court to say spend the bank
robbery money first.

The argument against is roughly this:

MR. SREBNICK: Justice Ginsburg, from a constitutional perspective, I don't
think that that's necessarily correct because the courts can give injunctive
power to restrain assets, even assets currently belonging to the defendant.
Our objection is when such an injunction interferes with the constitutionally
protected right to retain counsel of choice. And so while the statute could
constitutionally allow, provided that there is adequate hearings, et cetera,
the restraint of even a defendant's owned assets, lawfully owned assets, that
principle can't extend to assets ­­ the subset of assets she needs to use
counsel of choice.

[1] JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Srebnick, this goes back, I think, to the Chief
Justice's first question. It seems that the distinction that you're making is
one that the Court explicitly rejected in Monsanto.

[2]
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri...](http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-419_h3ci.pdf)

[3] "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

[4]
[http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/](http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/)

~~~
agarden
It strikes me that the problem with Justice Alito's analogy is that it
presumes guilt. One could retell the story this way: two brothers each
received $5000 from a rich uncle on the same day, and also made $5000 selling
old vinyl records that turned out to be highly collectible. Then they go and
spend $5000 partying. The government comes along and accuses them of attaining
the second $5000 through illicit means and freezes their remaining money on
the presumption of guilt. Defendants then cannot hire the counsel they desire,
lose their case and go to jail. But it wasn't drugs they sold, it was vinyl.

I'm not sure that my story would end up changing legal minds, but failing to
consider it as a possibility is unpardonable.

~~~
Natsu
They're not saying he's presumed guilty, they're just trying out various
scenarios to illustrate the effects of the laws.

And if you go that route, then it's not at all fair that some people can hire
expensive lawyers and others cannot to improve their chances. If someone
defrauds Medicare for millions, why should they get an expensive lawyer for
that when other people cannot afford them?

If everyone was forced to use public defenders, the powerful would use their
influence to make sure that it provided effective, independent defense. Even
so, it's not like getting an expensive lawyer somehow gets you off and a
public defender guarantees you'll be found guilty.

But it does not seem reasonable that we should adopt rules to increase the
unfairness by doing everything possible to remove any incentive to improve the
public defender's office and doing our utmost to ensure that the poor are
forever trapped with ineffective counsel.

Just for the record, this guy has a very expensive lawyer, not a public
defender.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"They're not saying he's presumed guilty, they're just trying out various
scenarios to illustrate the effects of the laws."

Yes, but the important point is that the courts can only act with what they
know at the time, not how some eventual case will come out.

If you expect the court to act under the "well sure, he's presumed innocent,
but we have to cover the case where he's guilty too" theory, then we're
expecting the courts to somehow figure out all of the possible combinations of
actions in the future that might affect the money.

So let's take Alito's argument. We arrest a couple of brothers in suspicion of
bank robbery. At the same time the bar owner opens a civil case for damages
done to his bar during their party. Their criminal lawyer, getting a feeling
he might not be paid (which sounds like a pretty good feeling to have) files a
civil suit for his money.

Now we're having to ask the court to make a decision today about monies to
maybe be spent or not sometime next year. This is ludicrous.

Yes, the money might be able to get away. But you've arrested the person, and
that's all you get. Aside from the due process problems here, it's quite
disturbing to see the government seemingly much more interested in the money
than the crime. Something's wrong there.

~~~
Natsu
That's not what they're doing or why.

They're not here to decide his fate or his case, though that may happen
incidentally. They're here to settle a legal question that was posed to them
in the petition for a writ of certiorari.

It's not their job to try his case, nor will they. Unless the entire case
hinges on this question (it doesn't), they don't decide his case. So they
might unfreeze his assets while he faces fraud charges, but we're not looking
at them deciding his guilt or innocence here.

They're trying to decide what the best precedent to set is, which is why they
have to consider every possible scenario. So yes, they really do have to
consider scenarios with guilty people. It really wouldn't make sense to have
them blind themselves to how the precedent will play out in the future. Surely
you do not believe this will never be applied to people guilty of fraud? They
do consider doubt in such stories, but only when it's important. So they might
do that if they were pondering the scope of reasonable doubt, but it wouldn't
make sense here.

This case may involve him but it's not about him. It's only about the Sixth
Amendment question posed. They're not concerned about all that other stuff
because they're not deciding his guilt or innocence.

> Yes, the money might be able to get away. But you've arrested the person,
> and that's all you get.

The Supreme Court and prior cases disagree with you.

> Aside from the due process problems here, it's quite disturbing to see the
> government seemingly much more interested in the money than the crime.
> Something's wrong there.

Yes, but that something is your understanding of what they're doing and why.

Due process is your Fifth Amendment right. Nowhere does this case allege a
violation of that right. This is not at all the same as a Sixth Amendment
right to counsel being argued here. Moreover, he is in fact already defended
by counsel of choice, specifically this one:
[http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/](http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/)

This makes the hypothetical infringement of the Sixth Amendment rights rather
oblique--was he really denied his right to counsel when the very expensive
lawyer he chose is arguing before the highest court in this country?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
" but we're not looking at them deciding his guilt or innocence here"

Yes, I got that. My point is that positing the various ways the case plays out
with whether the person is guilty or innocent is outside the scope of the
question. Alito's avenue of analysis was misguided. It doesn't matter whether
they're guilty or innocent because we're asking what the government should do
with the funds _before we know the result of the case_

And I understand the point of appeals courts. I'm making an argument based on
a plain, layman's understanding of how the system should work. I have no doubt
that for those inside the system, it all makes some kind of weird sense. "Hey,
we took all of your money, but look! The paperwork has been done correctly!"

I also understand that the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Probably isn't the
first time, nor will it be the last. Those guys are a hell of a lot smarter
than I am. My best argument is that at some point it makes sense legally but
yet you lose consent of the governed. Taking somebody's money so they can't
afford a lawyer -- along with a half-dozen or so other bone-headed decisions
over the last decade or two -- begin to cross that line. Somebody should speak
up. That "speaking up" is not a legal argument; it is a political one.

Sometimes the law is an ass.

Thank you for the instruction on the split between the Fifth and Sixth
Amendment issues. Lots of detail to consider here.

~~~
Natsu
I'd like to point out that I'm not "in the system" as it were. I'm not a
lawyer, I just happen to have studied a bit of legal procedure in college and
the Supreme Court in particular. Thus, I know the process and why one normally
petitions them for a writ of certiorari simply because the Supreme Court has
original jurisdiction over only some obscure types of cases and thus does not
hear most cases. See also:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari)

> we're asking what the government should do with the funds before we know the
> result of the case

The converse is that we have two innocent people who have money frozen. One
can pay for a lawyer, the other cannot.

If you find this is a Sixth Amendment violation, then isn't the Public
Defenders office itself a violation? If that's the case, why are they not
arguing that we cure that? The answer is that it wouldn't help them: they are
able to afford a rather expensive lawyer. It's true that a full defense is
expensive, but they're just causing themselves harm with an expensive Supreme
Court appeal rather than saving the funds for the main defense. There are
quite a few weird expenses involved there, not the least of which is the
special booklets prepared for each justice and several other parties which
have a large number of very exacting rules. Also, of note, is the fact that
one can petition the Supreme Court 'in forma pauperis' and the Supremes will
in fact pick up the tab for all that if you actually can't pay. They have
accepted pro se applicants who were then provided representation for all the
expensive formalities and such.

I think there is a good point that it's not at all fair that some people can
get their own lawyer while others cannot. It would be better if that was fair
for everyone, rather than rich people paying for better treatment.

Alas, that's not at all what petitioner is asking for. They're only interested
in a rule that would help themselves here and that would encourage people who
defrauded or robbed others to spend the stolen money first. So I steal all of
your money and use it to pay for an expensive lawyer to get away with it,
while poor but innocent people would have to rely on a state-appointed lawyer.

------
rdtsc
> Their argument dealt only with the Sixth Amendment — that while the
> government can seize untainted assets before trial, it must allow a
> defendant access to enough of his untainted assets to pay for his own
> defense.

However, in this case it seems to me the defendant is guilty of defrauding the
govt. to the tune of $40M. The possible outcome of the trial would be forcing
them to pay back + penalties perhaps. Had this been a trial about something
else (murder for ex.) govt might not have fought much to freeze the assets.

EDIT: The problem is of course with the word assets. Are we talking about
physical assets? Probalby not. Otherwise say they stole 5 apples from the govt
and they also happen to have 10 bananas of their own. Govt comes and take away
the apples and bananas. So one can say ok these apples are stolen, only get
those back, but should not take the bananas. Now imagine the assets is money
(as it probably is in this case). Can a thief steal a bag with $100 bills,
change them all to $20 bills and then tell teh govt, don't take my $20 bills,
these are not the assets I stole. I only stole $100 bills but those are gone
now. It doesn't work that way of course.

~~~
tikhonj
That's not the question here—those $20 bills would still be "tainted".
Moreover, the bar to demonstrate that they are tainted is reasonably low,
significantly easier than getting a conviction. In this case, though, the
_persecution agrees that the assets are unrelated_. As far as the courts are
concerned, that's an established fact.

It's more like if you steal some apples, perhaps eat some of them and then the
government freezes your bananas which you got through completely legitimate
means unrelated to your (alleged) crime.

~~~
rdtsc
In the larger scope they are related if they can be converted back to cash. I
imagine if assets are family photos or other maybe important items which have
no value. But if they have monetary value I can see govt's position in
freezing access to them.

------
venomsnake
Couldn't this be hacked by "law trouble" insurance. You get policy of up to X,
in case you have your assets frozen and need legal council.

The current situation is strange. I can see why the Supreme Court would not
want to open another can of worms. The problem comes from government being
able to freeze all assets without guilt. Everything else is band aid on
gangrene.

~~~
gohrt
Govt could sieze your insurance payout.

~~~
venomsnake
By that logic govt could prevent you from utilizing your health insurance. Not
sure if anyone could even think in that direction.

------
gnoway
Is this just an assertion that no money == no counsel, or is there some other
attack on the 6th amendment here?

I think the notion that 'clean' assets can be frozen pre-trial is unfair, but
as long as a public defender is actually available, that would seem to satisfy
the amendment.

~~~
lambda
> actually available

Define "actually available"

Most public defenders offices are so oversubscribed and underfunded that they
can't really provide good representation for the majority of their clients.

~~~
bayesianhorse
It doesn't say anywhere that a public defender has to be effective.

~~~
jdminhbg
The text of the amendment doesn't say so explicitly, but Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel is grounds for overturning convictions:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_coun...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel)

(Note that the standard requires both that your counsel was ineffective, and
that his/her ineffectiveness caused your conviction)

------
hliyan
As someone from a third world country with a 'poor' human rights track record,
US prosecutor conduct baffles even me. At least in this part of the world you
expect to get screwed over by incompetence or corruption, and not the
"system".

~~~
Laaw
That's most likely because you only hear about the extraordinary. The ordinary
cases are just that, ordinary, and justice gets served with little fuss.

~~~
hliyan
You're probably right. Plus I wasn't exactly fair in comparing a population of
300 million to one of 20 million. But where I come from 'going by the book'
usually results in the guilty going free, not the innocent getting screwed.
IANAL, but I wonder whether this is due to some difference between US law and
Roman-Dutch/British law?

~~~
austenallred
Yes, that's right. What you hear about are the extreme edge cases of society -
the places where things fall through the cracks. As a whole the US Justice
system is incredibly effective.

That being said, in a population of 300 million edge cases start to add up,
and they are significant problems we should figure out how to fix.

~~~
fraserharris
The function of the Supreme Court is to decide edge cases. Anything they hear
is either a question of overlapping laws and/or an area without significant
precedents.

~~~
austenallred
Very, very little makes it to the Supreme Court

------
annnnd
<IANAL> The defense strategy doesn't make sense to me... Could this case be
used to just this end? To shake Sixth Amendement and lay some ground work for
terrorism case in future? Could it be that this is arranged between defendent
and state attorney? </IANAL>

------
hwstar
If the government gets to carried away with this, then _jury nullification_
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)
will come into play.

------
Kinnard
They're about to kick out one of the legs of this Republic.

------
mirimir
Well, W was at least honest enough to admit that the Constitution is "just a
goddamned piece of paper" ;)

------
mucker
So: \- We've had religious erosions to the First \- Continued assault against
the Second \- The Third appears to be safe \- Fourth is largely gone with
Forfeiture \- Fifth mostly safe \- Sixth now under attack \- Seventh also
attacked by Forfeiture \- This ruling also takes a passing swipe at the Eighth
if it goes through \- The Ninth and Tenth were finally destroyed by the Health
Care Act

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Destroyed? Hyperbole. You had to have insurance to drive a car already - did
that destroy it?

Yes the balance of rights of individuals in an every-more-entangled economic
and social world is shifting. And we'll have to do more to adjust to social
media, the speed of the internet, cheap pervasive surveillance by anybody
(drones, minicams etc) of anybody, and so on.

~~~
Tactic
I have no desire to pull the conversation off track but comparing auto
insurance requirements to the affordable care act is apples and oranges.

You don't have to own a car. (and in fact fewer and fewer people do) You also
don't have to have auto insurance to own or drive a vehicle, just to drive it
on public thoroughfares. Which, believe it or not, is not everyone's use case.

------
jeffdavis
Couldn't asset freezing be more like "spending review" where the court
approves certain spending for certain purposes?

I don't see any reason why ordinary spending on lawyers, rent, food, etc.
should be prohibited before conviction.

For civil cases it might be different. If there are specific contested assets,
it might make sense to freeze those.

