in the final analysis, this amendment does not change the status quo. Leaving the status quo in place would allow a steady stream of postconviction habeas appeals to any number of courts. It also leaves intact perhaps the greatest problem area in habeas litigation: The failure of the present system to require competent counsel at the very beginning of the proceedings. Without competent counsel appointed at the front end, we should not be surprised that habeas appeals are allowed at the back-end of the process. In contrast the substitute that will be offered shortly by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] will procedurally streamline the habeas process to one appeal in 12 months and set out impeccable counsel standards to ensure adequate representation from the start. I would therefore urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's strike amendment and cast an aye vote for the Derrick substitute which follows.
Editor's note · Context
Debating an amendment related to habeas corpus appeals and advocating for a substitute proposal.
Share
More from Jack Brooks
I believe a number are noncontroversial and can be dealt with rather quickly. Because I think that this body should be given the chance to vote on them, I am now offering these amendments as an en bloc amendment. My action is in no way…
Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's effort to provide a comprehensive solution to the problems of private security guards whose qualifications may be suspect, I have a number of concerns which lead me to oppose the amendment…
The Conference Committee on S. 636 reported back to us a product that merges the Senate and the House-passed bills in a very careful, balanced fashion. Thus, the Senate's protections against interfering with the exercise of religious…
it is with some regret that I rise to oppose the legislation now being considered by the House. I realize the good intentions and the motivations that lie beyond trying to craft a legislative solution to the perceived problem surrounding…





