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:
After all, no one really ‘knows it all’. They may be one though. Makes me want all the more to prove them wrong, if they ARE wrong.
Mr. Keebler,
Of course. Actually, I think that problem will end tonight. You see, people see what is going on but they don’t want to interfere. Not for Kitty Genovise reasons. Rather, they are concerned that you might be offended if someone steps in.
Now we know better. And I bet there will be people who will shout out when such nonsense happening. And maybe the trick will be to keep it real simple. No clever lines. Just “knock it off”. And use the offender’s name so there is no pretending – “oh, that wasn’t me”. I think it could work.
Feynman,
Even if one shares their profession/employment history, it doesn’t make them an authority on the subject. They may want you to believe it to end the discussion, but we know that’s what they’re doing, right? So we proceed. They can eat our dust.:)
Annie, no problem.
I had thought about the problem a bit differently. When someone offers their profession or employment history as proof that their opinion is positively correct and uses that history to end all opposing positions, it puts the guy who has shared his history at an unfair advantage. Their “history” is used as a weapon and often facts present themselves that lead one to question that history. (Sorry. Too many “histories”.)
Feynman,
To be able to just post without have your manhood challenged would be a nice change.
Annie,
Have you deleted the apps you no longer use? That could be a reason that it takes so long for your iPad to load. You need about a 25% buffer in unused space to load up the web pages. That’s my recommendation. I try out a new tablet or computer every 6 to 9 months. Just got the new dell venue pro, it’s a lot different, but it hooks up with my desktop and laptop. My brother says I have more electronics than most stores. Might be a stretch but not much.
Mr. Keebler,
I’m sorry. But hang in there. When this is resolved I think there will be a better understanding of the boundaries.
Feynman, yes I did but it’s such a long thread and my iPad is so old it keeps shutting down on that thread. My answer is no nothing wrong with asking about someone’s profession, but to continue the questioning after he declines to answer could be construed as harassment, again my opinion only.
Unfortunately, yes one in the same.
Annie,
Thanks. I left you a note over at the AA post – the one with the really long thread. Did you happen to spot it?
Feynman, Oliveoyl @ 8:41 got it right, IMO. As for sockpuppetry, who knows? Who cares? Two peas in a pod at any rate. Spinelli can’t interfere with a thread or discussion, he doesn’t have any authority here. Professor Turley does. If you’re having a good discussion and someone wants derail the thread, ignore him, or call him on it and then proceed as if he had said nothing at all. Just my advice, for what it’s worth.
Mr. Keebler,
Jon? Prof. Turley?
Mr. Spinelli and Paul S
Any thoughts?
I certainly do, I am still waiting for an answer. But somehow or another Jon thinks that I am doing the attacking, I kid you not.
Mr. Keebler,
You see what I see.
I’ve prepared this. Annie, I hope you can stick around
Last night Mr. Spinelli dropped into a very long thread (see the Affirmative Action post) and said that it should have died two hours ago, we should close it up and he didn’t want Prof Turley bothered with uncivility when the Professor had just lost a dear friend. We were having a great time learning stuff and it wasn’t uncivil.. It was over 600 comments. But it closed down around midnight. It had been going all day -it was wide-ranging and, I thought, pretty darn interesting. There were maybe four or five of us engaged.
But I was bothered. What was uncivil? I didn’t get it. I added three very respectful notes for Mr. Spinelli asking for clarification. Perhaps most importantly, I asked NS if Prof. Turley had contacted Mr. Spinelli and asked him to shut us down. And I was pretty confused as to what constitutes incivility when nigger and Chink had been posted without complaint.
Now Mr. Spinelli is on this thread (Republican Gov.) and I have asked him a dozen times if Prof Turley asked that we shut down. He refuses to answer ANYTHING. And Paul S also refuses to answer a very simple question…is the data he has shared with me from 2012 because notes on data say that it’s four years old. The exchanges are repetitive but very short. Check out the Republican Gov. post starting at
7:36.
I’m no expert and frankly have no experience with this stuff, but I do believe Paul S is Mr. Spinelli’s sock puppet and have repeatedly asked them if that is the case. There is banter between the two of them, but nothing addressed to me.
Except now Paul says:
Well, if you are going to call me names, I am not going to play with you. I am not responsible for your inability to do research. I am aware that you have trouble reading and comprehending. And you wanted to play this game. If you keep moving the goal posts there is no game to play.
Feynman,
Did you ever get an answer?
😛
feynman
Mr. Spinelli
The courtesy of a reply is requested.
…
I’m sorry to say, I think we have been had and Mr. Spinelli and Paul S. are one in the same.
…
=================
It is a gang of bangerz.
As Annie would say, don’t be afraid, bend over and smile.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – you are aware …
============
Funny you should say that.