Put yourself in this situation:

You are arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. The standard punishment for this misdemeanor is a fine, community service, and probation -- a suspended jail or prison sentence that you don't have to fulfill if you stay clean to the satisfaction of your probation officer.

That means your liberty is entirely at the discretion of a probation officer. On his word alone, you can be rearrested, and in some states your probation revoked. For your misdemeanor, you may serve a year or two in prison, based solely only what your probation officer decides. (It's worse if you're on parole -- half of all people in California prisons are parole violators put there solely by the same Corrections Department that constantly cries for more prisons due to "overcrowding.")

Given that this misdemeanor means you may be imprisoned for a year or two, now or in the future, are you entitled to a lawyer when you're in court? 50 states say "no." Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas (who never met a defendant they liked) agree, as does Justice Kennedy. By a slim 5-4 majority, though, the Supreme Court said you are entitled to a lawyer in any court proceeding that can result in your imprisonment.

Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas don't seem to think you have a right to a lawyer at all if you can't afford one, or at least not a right to a good or effective one, but they object to this decision because it will cost too much and clog the courts. How can anyone admire Supreme Court Justices who put efficiency and budgets ahead of your Constitutional rights?

I know posting links from The Onion is like shooting fish in a barrel, but the very notion that the Drudge Report could be wrong??? Gads!