We have recently discussed attacks on lawyers for simply doing their jobs in representing accused individuals. It is truly vile and McCarthyist trend that seeks to punish professional working within our criminal justice system. It is particularly offensive therefore when a large, presumably respectable organization unleashed such an attack. However, that is precisely what the Republican Governors Association has done in the attack ad below against State Senator Vincent Sheheen (left) who is being opposed because he represented people accused of crimes. To its credit, the South Carolina Bar Association has stepped forward to denounce the ad as containing “uncivil, misleading political rhetoric.” It is a shameful and shocking ad that attacks the very notion of due process guaranteed by our Constitution. The ad is designed to help Gov. Nikki Haley in her reelection campaign.
The ad proclaims that “Sheheen defended violent criminals who abused women and went to work setting them free.”
Eager to join the mob in attacking these due process values has been the South Carolina Republican party which issued a press release entitled “New Research Shows Vince Sheheen Defended Sex Offenders, Child Molesters, and Spouse Abusers for Pay.” Even Eugene McCarthy would blush at the premise of the campaign: Sheheen should be opposed simply because he agreed to represent those accused of crimes. It states:
Candidate-Vince wants to be governor and wants South Carolinians to entrust him with the oversight of our pardons and parole system, yet lawyer-Vince has proven he will sell out South Carolinas children, women, and victims if it means he can personally cash a paycheck.
But there is a lot more to Vince’s profiting from defending hardened criminals than The State’s recent report indicates.
And South Carolinians deserve to know exactly who Vince Sheheen is and what that means before casting a vote in this year’s general election. Let me walk you through new information that court records has revealed about the kind of work Vince Sheheen does for money.
They then detail with breathless rhetoric how Sheenen was . . . wait for it . . . a criminal defense attorney.
Attacks on this kind are used to deter young lawyers from defending criminal defendants. The message is clear: if you accept an appointment or a client in a criminal case, you will be making yourself ineligible for any public office. Already, the federal and state courts are heavily populated by former prosecutors while few former criminal defense attorneys are even considered for the bench.
The South Carolina Republicans ignore the possibility that some people might actually be innocent and that being accused by the government does not make you guilty. Yet, GOP chairman Matt Moore dismisses any notion that the attack ads raise any issues of “due process or the right to have counsel, . . . It’s about someone who wants to represent South Carolina not standing up for our citizens. He could have stood with abuse victims and exploited children and instead took a paycheck. Vincent Sheheen made a choice that was wrong.” That wrong choice was simply being a criminal defense attorney. Yet, Moore does not think that that has anything to do with the right of counsel.
Of course, those criminal defense attorneys that defended such Republican politicians like Tom DeLay, Ted Stevens, David Vitter, and others presumably are not bottom feeding, corruption loving lawyers.
The RGA Communications Director Gail Gitcho is fueling the anti-lawyer and anti-due process theme: “Actions speak louder than words . . . As he attempts to court voters with ‘tough on crime’ and ‘defender of women’ rhetoric, they should remember Vincent Sheheen has fought for the very same criminals he now decries, not for South Carolina.” Gitcho’s comments are being made (as is this campaign) in the name of all GOP governors from Chris Christie to Bobby Jindal and others. They should all be asked why they have not denounced this campaign and held accountable those who would seek to demonize candidates for simply being defense lawyers. Notably prior and current Republican candidates have represented criminal defendants. Ironically, when Arlen Specter switches parties in 2009, conservatives demanded that his representation of the notorious Ira Einhorn be raised in the campaign.
The South Carolina Bar has taken an apparently unprecedented step and condemned an attack ad. It includes a simple fact sheet with such obvious points that “Lawyers have a professional duty to ensure that justice is not rationed but is available to everyone, a right guaranteed to each of us by the Constitution. It is the job of a criminal defense lawyer to ensure his or her client has a fair trial, not to defend the crime.”
The absence of a national condemnation of this campaign from Republicans is equally astonishing. I realize that politics in this country has become a blind rage from both parties, but there has to be limits. When we start to demonize people for fulfilling constitutional functions, we have descended to a new level of self-destructive, hateful debate. The campaign by the RGA and the South Carolina GOP truly shocks the conscience. The same campaign could have been used against John Adams for representing the British soldiers accused in the Boston massacre. It follows the principle that all is far in love and politics. However, when you start to effectively campaign against core American values of due process and the right to counsel, you have reached lost all sense of propriety and proportion. I am most shocked that GOP lawyers must have played some role in this attack on our profession in the development of the campaign.
The Republican party has strived to convince the public that it is not an extremist or radical organization after being painted by a series of embarrassing candidates in the last election. Yet, many independents are likely to recoil at this crude and thoughtless campaign.
I will leave you with the words of Joseph Welsh who faced Joe McCarthy on June 9, 1954, the 30th day of the Army–McCarthy hearings. Until that day, politicians thought that the public would continue to rally around the attacks on filmmakers and others who were paraded before Congress. However, the public saw for the first time the hatred and ignorance behind these attacks in the televised hearing and they were as repulsed as Welch.
As I watched this disgraceful ad, Welch’s final words seemed all to prophetic and poignant:
firefly, And Christie was a US Attorney, he knows this ad is horseshit.
I hold Chris Christie at least partly responsible for this since he is Chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
Truth is still a defense right? I have been thinking, is a person that uses racial slurs really a racist? You’d thought Mr. Bundy was a half way decent man until he opened his mouth, maybe you should take a cue from his former backers.
You talking to me you racial slur user?
Chriisake, you sel righteous libi-tard, your minion has pointed out that the SCOTUS is going to shut that avenue down. You all need to get the same play book. And for Chriissake, I said he was overcharged from the beginning based upon the Florida law. Now, they’ve gone a step further to try and seal a record where a petson is found not gulity on SYG laws. For Chrissake, even a 2nd grader can see that reasoning on the wall.
Zimmerman, really..really?
Chriisake all you self righteous Dems. Attack ads are part of the game. If you know ANYTHING about history the political mudslinging was MUCH worse in prior decades and centuries. They’re merely more ubiquitous now. and if you knew ANYTHING about the Constitution you would know political speech is the MOST protected. As I have said, this is a horseshit ad. But you fight political horseshit ads w/ a hard hitting ad attacking the buffoons who made this ad. Politics is hardball, not chess. You answer speech w/ speech. This is all pretty basic shit.
Darrel,
Prosecutors are much worse in that arena. Plus laws are supposed to be in place that don’t inflame a jurors mind about prior criminal history.
Annie,
Unfortunately, the criminal justice system treats alls folks accused, arrested as being guilty until proven into guilty, I want to say innocent, but we know Zimmerman escaped a just verdict.
keebler, my little elf – for those of us who followed the Zimmermann trial start to finish and did not hear it on Nancy Grace or through soundbites, it was very likely they were going to find him innocent of the original charge. Where it got shaky was when the judge added a lesser included.
My problem with criminal lawyers is their dishonesty of hiding facts from the jury, trivializing their criminals atrocity’s, blaming victims, telling whoppers of fairy tale lies as fraudulent reasonable doubt, keeping the proceeds of crimes as their fees, etc., etc.
This is not to say I find the other side or the “Courthouse Gang” innocent of much either.
So people are guilty until proven innocent in the GOP’s eyes? How does that comport with their supposed reverence for the Constitution? Defense attorneys should not be elected officials because they defend the accused? Really? Wow.
Ads like this make me want to vote for the guy. Personally, I detest the election season. There is no point in watching TV or listening to the radio because of all the mudslinging and insincere promises they make of their candidates. I just read about the candidates or the issues from other sources. The campaign ads are useless anyway.
So when are they going to pass that law or vote on that law that makes it a crime to make libelous statement against a political candidate? This should prove to be a good test case.
keebler – there are laws like that in several states and the SCOTUS just heard oral argument on one of them. It was a technicality, but the court make take it on its merits. The oral argument dealt more with the merits than the technicality.
Annie- there is a famous or an infamous case of a politician accusing his opponent of being a ‘flaming heterosexual.’ Hard to defend yourself against that. The ‘flaming heterosexual’ lost.
Paul, I agree that demonization works and both sides use it, often effectively. That said, there’s nothing in that ad that could not be said about ANY criminal defense attorney. It’s akin to running an ad against an MD running for office that he cures, killers and rapists. That is what they have both sworn to do.
Steve – demonization seems to work. If nothing else it brings out the base. The Democrats have a mantra about the Koch Bros that they have been using for a couple of years. The bigger question is: Is the ad accurate?
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/reince-priebus-harry-reid-dirtyso-unethical-105942.html
Historically this is a problem that defense attorneys have always had. They defend criminals. I have heard some interviewed who say they never ask their client if they did it or not because that would affect the way they defend them. Ignorance is bliss. I think everyone should be defended, however, this is part of the territory.
I did not see any here get their undies in a wad when some were talking about jailing the attorney who wrote the memo on waterboarding. Now, a defense attorney gets raked over the coals, poor baby. Not many of you defended F. Lee Bailey when he was trying to get his law license back. Is this more because it is an effective attack on a Democrat?
What is sad is that experienced politicians believe that this type of political demonization will work – what is worse is that many Americans will probably fall for it.
I just don’t have the words for all this means on so many levels. Thanks again, Repubs.
What is confounding to me is the fact that there are many attorneys in the Republican Party. I think there is a higher % of barristers comprising the Dem Party pols, but nonetheless, there are plenty Republican pols. Obviously the Rep attorneys aren’t persuasive enough in getting their colleagues mind’s right. Because they know this is horseshit.
Reblogged this on CLINGERS… BLOGGING BAD ~ DICK.G: AMERICAN ! and commented:
GyG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!