When Republican here, Gary Zimmerman was on trial for murdering Trayvon Martin, Republicans were quick to point out how Zimmerman had the right to an aggressive defense, as they promised support for his appeals, if Zimmerman had been justly convicted. Although I remain firm in my opinion that Zimmerman is guilty, I certainly agree that he has a right to representation, because it is guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment. It appears that Republicans and I agree, but we do not. I believe the right is absolute. Republicans believe it is conditional. Consider this:
Senate Republicans are vowing to continue their vocal opposition to President Obama’s nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, expressing outrage over the fact that he once served as a legal representative for an internationally known convicted cop-killer.
Adegbile, 47, spent more than a decade working for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund and served as the group’s in-house voting rights expert. In was in that role that Adegbile contributed to appeals filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police Sgt. Daniel Faulkner.
Asked about his participation in Abu-Jamal’s appeals during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination in January, Adegbile insisted that, despite Abu-Jamal’s conviction, he deserved legal representation during his appeals… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
What hypocrisy! Whatever you believe about Mumia’s conviction, he has a right to representation. Providing that representation was Adegbile’s job. From this, the answer is clear. Republicans would deny the Sixth Amendment, unless it is invoked on behalf of someone they support.
9 Responses to “Would Republicans deny the Sixth Amendment?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
We all know they defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights only when it suits their purposes.
Short answer: of course. They would deny anything and everything in the Constitution and/or the US Code if it served their purpose. Heck, there might even be a set of circumstances in which they would deny the SECOND Amendment, the only one they really care about.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with President Obama and his selection – no document, however binding, however designed to be the founding ABC's upon which the country was founded, can interfere with the obstinancy and seditionist behavior the Republican party has chosen to follow!
As for Zimmerman, he is lauded by the Republican party for 2 reasons, namely, that he promotes the racism that runs rampant in the South, not only against people of color, but the President as well, and although guilty, he symbolizes the control that the NRA and gun advocates hope to maintain. The Constitution is a "convenient" piece of literature, if it promotes their issues, and that's as far as it goes.
I am still waiting for the civil trial vs. George Zimmermann which I infer he will lose…
You got it Tom: "Republicans would deny the Sixth Amendment, unless it is invoked on behalf of someone they support." I'm betting RepubliCONs would deny ANY right if the "wrong" people were using them! NO freedom of Speech for the radical Left, or minorities, Occupy Wall $treet, etc. Imagine if ALL the Occupy Wall $treeters were carrying guns? There would go the Reich-wing's Cherished 2nd Amendment too!
He definitely has a right to representation. Only the Republicans can so misinterpret our constitution and bill of rights. How else did we get "Gitmo".
The 6th amendment as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
An inconvenient truth! Truth and equality under the law . . . concepts anathema to the Republicanus/Teabaggers . . . well unless one counts themselves amongst their numbers.
Thanks everyone, I suspect Republicans would make the 2nd Amendment for whites only.