> cHat wrote: > > Amazingly, I found this one in the Times online >
That's a crappy sensationalistic analysis. The Obama administration is arguing that Jackson denies the defendant's right represent themselves if they've previously asked for representation. Further they're saying that Jackson doesn't matter because the 6th amendment already give you the right to representation. If you're really curious about the various issues - and I'll give you props to get more 30 seconds into it - you can read all about it here: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-1529 Further, the Supreme Court asked for briefing on overturning Michigan v. Jackson without hearing oral arguments which is rare given the pending case. A simple question for the Obama administration according to my wife (who has attended prep sessions for attorneys going in front of SCOTUS) is, "if Jackson doesn't matter then why do you want it overturned?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:296232 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
