Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Judicial independence and the initiative process after the Hancock case

November 6, 2007 By AmberPaw

Since that time, judicial promotions and assignments are greatly impacted by how good a collection agent a judge is – and the statistics are posted online each year.

Despite the Wisconsin case holding use of indigent fees to fund court functions as unconstitutional, no one has had the temerity to take the legislature on about this – despite what a radical idea this is in reality.[Retained revenue from assessments such as indigent counsel fees, as a means to fund mandated government functions].

Indigent counsel fees should be used to fund the 6th Amendment right to counsel, not vanish into the “general fund”.  The right to counsel should be fully funded, not funded in the budget at 80% of the expenditure for indigent counsel appointments the prior year – followed by a lengthy wait to be paid by those who accept indigent representation appointments through waiting for the legislature to pass slow moving supplemental budgets. 

Such supplemental budgets are rarely “clean” and limited to paying the state’s unpaid, overdue bills.  They typically become vehicles for earmarks and new programs.  This year, for example, one of my bills to the proper agency in April of 2007 was finally paid last week – in November.  Many seasoned advocates have stopped, or greatly reduced the number of cases they take to represent indigets, which is a real loss.

Further, Chapter 54 of the Acts of 2005 – see  http://www.mass.gov/… mandated that two Commissions be established.  One Commission was to review decriminalization of minor offenses  [thereby reducting the judicial work load and the number of cases to be appointed] and the other to review other aspects of indigent representation.  Neither Commission has been appointed to date.

In many ways, the judicial branch in Massachusetts is not co-equal, and the state of the body politik has suffered.

It is my opinion that the SJC will no longer tangle with the legislature about anything that involves use of the general fund revenue, or appropriations.  SEE  http://www.mma.org/i…

It is my opinion that actual judicial independence has been severely undercut by by the “retained revenue” requirement, and general underfunding of the Judicial branch.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: hancock-case, indigent-counsel-fees, initiative-petition, judicial-independence, retained-revenue

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.