this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
413 points (98.8% liked)

politics

26327 readers
2878 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 43 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

If public defenders are good enough for everyone else, they’re good enough for politicians. Maybe they’ll actually get some funding and support that way.

[–] hanrahan@piefed.social 8 points 3 hours ago

Agreed ,the only defenders should be public and appointed by a lottery. If you can butu a better defender the system is corrupt.

[–] verdi@feddit.org 6 points 6 hours ago

This is the way!

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

You don't get a public defender for civil lawsuits, which are the majority of those kinds of lawsuits. So no, public defenders aren't good enough for everyone, because they don't exist for civil lawsuits.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yep that is an accurate description of the way the broken system currently works. Thanks!

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah. That's the proper response to your statement being wrong. Lol. . .

Yes, the system has issues--the issue being that the loser in the suit doesn't take the burden of reasonable attorney costs for both parties. That alone would fix most of it. Government doesn't need to give anyone a right to a civil lawyer.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

"We should change the way things work." "Thats not how things work" great argument buddy, glad we could hash this out.

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean you stayed.

If the public defenders are good enough for everyone else

as a present which is not the case, since they're not in civil lawsuits

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but if we changed the rules we could, for example, add funding to the office of the Public Defenders and they could hire a special lawyer for civil cases against public servants available to anyone who doesn't wish to pay for their own laywers.

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

Why? That accomplishes only increased government costs when the same accessibility could be brought about by allowing the loser of the case to take on reasonable lawyer fees of both people.