[Dog Gone]

I'll have to read the decision in order to see if I agree with a reporter's charactization of it, but my initial reaction is that this is BS, and Scalia must be losing it.

The only hurdle should be whether one gets adequate legal representation, not who the particular attorney is.

If I have a constitutional right to Clarence Darrow as my attorney, and he happens to be DEAD, that is a problem.

[Kryptonite]

I have to agree, Scalia really blew this one. He's creating all kinds of problems for courts. Suppose that Bruce Cutler, the mob attorney, can't be in court for a particular client because he's already scheduled a trial with a higher-paying client. Is the criminal court judge violating the defendant's right if he refuses to adjourn his trial so Bruce can be there? There's so many potential loopholes that Nino will regret this one. I'll go on record right now that he'll actually see the error of his decision and acknowledge it in a future opinion.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If I have a constitutional right to Clarence Darrow as my attorney, and he happens to be DEAD, that is a problem.

The lawyer was alive, the defendant wanted to hire him, he had the money to hire him, the lawyer was willing and available, and the judge kept him out of the trial for no good reason. Scalia was right.

[GSlob]

"If I have a constitutional right to Clarence Darrow as my attorney, and he happens to be DEAD, that is a problem."
Nope. Scalia in his wisdom saw right through you: "Nor can defendants insist on counsel who are not members of the bar". Being dead, Darrow is no longer a member.

[Sandy]

Scalia must be losing it.

Scalia is one of the Court's strongest defenders of the 6th Amendment. His vote isn't the least bit surprising; I expected it.