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:
It appears that my remarks require clarification. I was attempting to redirect the discussion to the issue. I do not regard the ad as civilly actionable, and did not say so. What I am saying is that the response should focus on what the ad has to say about its sponsors’ views of the Constitution.
Mike – the larger issue is whether this is protected speech or not. To me the key is whether the ad was accurate or not.
Mike,
I have long held the belief that there are those who profess the utmost respect for the Constitution (libertarians and republicans) until push comes to shove. It’s sort of like living ones faith, it’s most difficult to do when it’s against one’s own inclinations. Campaigning may be a dirty low down undertaking, but having standards and principals and sticking to them under duress will be the measure of a man/woman/candidate/ political party.
Annie,
I do believe that it was Paul whom stated that there is a case presently before the court on libelous political ads.
As Mike Appleton has adequately stated this is an abrogation of the defendant const rights. And Mr. Spinelli claims that it’s protected speech.
I am going to go along with Mike Appletons version of the const as this is akin to demeaning not only attorney, professors and judges. It not only violates the spirit of due process, but is akin to hollering fire in a crowded theater.
keebler – you can think what you want, but it is probably protected speech. I really think you need a theater to yell fire in. Using the airways, where people can listen or not listen is greatly different.
Mike – until we have a law against demeaning the Constitution, I do not think there is going to be a case for that. 🙂 However, as I have mentioned before and you have repeated, it is something that comes with the territory of being a defense attorney. I am against making defense attorneys a protected class so that we cannot bad-mouth them, just as I am against making prosecutors or cops a protected class so we cannot bad mouth them.
Its politics, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
SWM, It’s hardball, not chess. And SC is maybe the nastiest.
MikeA, Eloquent, but the Constitution protects political speech. How do you reconcile the two. The ad disparages defense attorneys in general but only states information about his cases and the defendant’s he represented. The ad exploits the ignorance of many people of the justice system in which I worked for 35 years. But, there are MUCH more scurrilous ads that prey upon ignorance, race, religion, etc. You answer speech w/ more speech. I’m surprised @ your take on this. Maybe that the ad hits the profession that you so nobly practice blinds you a bit. Just a thought.
Republicans play exceptionally rough in South Carolina. Just think about what the Bush campaign did to McCain concerning his adopted child.
The threads on this site appear to be jumping the tracks with increasing frequency. The issue raised by the comment is actually worthy of serious discussion beyond the “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” variety.
There is a genuine disconnect among many people between the notion of due process and the right to counsel in criminal cases. I’ve only tried a handful of criminal cases, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked over the past 40 years how an attorney can defend a person he knows to be guilty. Indeed, I had that very conversation with my own father shortly after I graduated from law school.
My perception is that lay persons do not make a distinction in their minds between the legal and moral concepts of “guilt.” In other words, in common usage we regard a guilty person as someone who has committed a moral wrong. In law, guilt is a function of the establishment beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements constituting a crime. A not guilty verdict is a judgment by a jury that the state has not satisfied its burden. We demand strict compliance with the requirements of due process because we recognize that that is our only protection against the potentially abusive power of the state. So the role of a criminal defense attorney is of the highest constitutional importance: to make certain that due process is afforded the accused. That is precisely why denigrating the practice of criminal defense goes beyond mere political mudslinging. It disserves the public by treating fundamental constitutional principles as mere fodder for clever lawyers. Thus we frequently hear the charge that a particular accused “got off on a technicality” when the “technicality” is usually a violation of one or more provisions of the Bill of Rights.
It is shortsighted to treat the ad in question as simply another example of negative campaigning or to advance tu quoque arguments over which party is more reprehensible in that regard. It not only offends the candidate; it demeans the Constitution.
“They then detail with breathless rhetoric how Sheenen was . . . wait for it . . . a criminal defense attorney.” – JT
He would have been better off as a slave to hear some of them tell it.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/jack_craver/dale-schultz-i-am-not-willing-to-defend-them-anymore/article_7c3598f2-ae16-11e3-8097-0019bb2963f4.html
Dale Schultz, Republican spoke out against Voter Supression laws. That is why Wisconisn Republicans turned on him. Dale Schutlz: “I am not willing to defend them anymore”.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113133/elizabeth-colbert-busch-abortion-push-poll-contemptible-smear Colbert’s sister was ahead in the polls until the push polling started.
SWM, I remember his sister’s and his campaign. Here’s my question about Colbert? Before he got his own Colbert Report where he used the correct French pronunciation, he went by the South Carolinian “bert,” hard ‘t’ pronunciation. I bet he stays w/ the French pronunciation. What do you think?
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/20/voter-caging-scheme-uncovered-in-wisconsin/
Another underhanded practice by Republicans in Wisconsin. Voter caging.
On the voter caging thingie, although firedoglake (noted far left progressive site) says that it is a Republican tactic, it actually started with Democrats challenging black voters in the South.
Actually, both parties are allowed to challenge voters at the polls and are expected to if they cannot supply the necessary ID, etc.
Paul, Dick is one messed up dude and he is VERY forthcoming in admitting it. He just makes me laugh hysterically. I really don’t like Alec Baldwin but he is hilarious. I detest Pete Rose for what he did to the game’s integrity, but he was a great player.
Underhanded tactics of Republicans seem to be on the rise, here in Wisconsin they went after one of their own.
http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20140415/SHE0602/304150170/Editorial-Sleazy-tactics-push-moderates-out-state-politics
How terrible of Republicans to use the same underhanded tactics that Democrats have used against them. Strangely enough, the offended party did admit that he said all those things and it was hard to defend it.
If I could give but one gift to my fellow Americans, it would be TiVo. I haven’t seen a political (or any other) ad in years.
I don’t have TiVo but I do fast forward or mute thru ALL ads.
Wow. One of the reasons I prefer a written record as opposed to the spoken word is just this. I refer to my initial comment @ 9:21, prior to the thread devolving. Then please then read my 9:46 and 10:46 comments corroborating what I think of this tactic. SWM, DEZZA, and a few others understand this intellectually. I have no desire to engage in the emotional, partisan debacle that does not reflect the historical and Constitutional issues here.
nick, Colbert’s sister ran in the city of Charleston and lost.
Yep
Annie, I try not to be “self righteous” as I really don’t presume to have the answers. I have been attacked for my liberal democratic political views here by numerous posters including the keebler elf.