"I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense"

I will admit that Justice Antonin Scalia is a brilliant jurist, though I often find myself opposed to him ideologically. I also find him a prima donna, all too ready to preen before a camera, like with the the infamous hand gesture incident, or writing opinions with the equivalent of a sledgehammer when a pin hammer would do. However, I do respect him. Scalia is much more interested in preserving an ideology or adhering to a legal idea, than in advancing the interests of a specific political group. In other words, the means matters more than the ends. Unlike Thomas, he won't side with whatever the Administration wants. For example, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), he wrote a dissent joined by Justice Stevens, whom many consider to be ideological liberal. Scalia wrote that in accordance with the Constitution, only Congress could suspend habeas corpus, it hadn't done so, so Hamdi must either be charged or released. In that case, Thomas was the only Justice who completely agreed with the government's position that they got him and they can do whatever they want with him because there's a war.

Another example of this occurred in oral arguments for United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez. A defendant had asked for a specific lawyer to defend him, but the lawyer was not admitted to practice in that jurisdiction. The lawyer asked permission to practice in that jurisdiction for only that case, a practice known as pro hac vice, but he was denied. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel in a criminal trial, but does it guarantee a lawyer of the defendant's choice, or merely a competent lawyer? The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Sixth Amendment affords a defendant his or her choice of lawyers. "Lawyers are not fungible." United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 399 F.3d 924, 928 (2005). One lawyer isn't as good as another. A defendant has a right to select whom he or she wants. From his questioning, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to disagree with the Eighth Circuit's holding. Chief Justice Roberts said, "It's not as if he asks for a Rolls-Royce and gets a Yugo or something." BTW, the Chief Justice drives a beige Honda Odyssey. Justice Scalia on the other hand, seemed to indicate he was leaning the other way. ''I don't want a 'competent' lawyer. I want a lawyer to get me off. I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense. I want to win.'' Might I suggest using the Chewbacca defense?

I should note that most Rules of Professional Conduct tend to side with the position you should get the lawyer you want, not just any lawyer.