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:
Paul
Good point. Okay. Have to think some more and read some legal philosophy. And I don’t think I’m right on anything until I can better support my idea.
Uh oh. I just ran into another problem. You aren’t ALWAYS entitled to an attorney. See Gideon. BUT, you are always entitled to an attorney when charged with murder.
Sigh. Oh well. Some days just aren’t good ones.
Sorry. I know it’s a dead horse and a bit off tangent
I think most here believe Obama’s authorization to kill US citizens without a trial is an abomination. or at least of very great concern. And I believe you most likely have come to that conclusion because you strongly believe in the right to a fair trail. Fair, means your are entitled to a defense. (That right may only apply with felony cases. At any rate, the case has to of sufficient seriousness in order for you to be guaranteed an attorney. It’s the Gideon case)
So why no love for the guy who is a highly regarded,highy qualified civil rights attorney for the NAACP when he is blocked from heading up the DOJ Civil Rights division and the Senate has said most specifically he was blocked because he defended a man (a US citizen) who killed a LEO?
*********
Shifting gears to your topic
Aren’t the Supremes going to rule on truth in political advertising by June?
I suspect they will say anythings goes – it’s free speech.
It was not that he represented someone who killed a LEO, it was the particular someone he defended who has become a cause celebre in some liberal-progressive circles.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/03/05/286393192/senate-rejects-obama-nominee-for-key-civil-rights-post
Here is the NPR article on the Senate vote and background of the situation
This woman deserves a medal, I have done my research and she speaks the God’s Truth – administrative hacks and non believers are trying to get the people to think she is some sort of nutcase but she speaks the truth !
Just join the French army!
Paul
@4:03 typo?
Do you mean a right CAN”T be taken or given away?
Your right to bear arms can be taken away. Your right to free speech can be taken away. Both of those rights you can willingly sign away.
We are talking about South Carolina here. I live in North Carolina and the South Carolinians call us Damn Yankees. If you want to understand the present RepubliCon Party as it has molded itself for the past fifty five years, you have to understand the Architect of the Southern Strategy. His name was Lee Atwater. He was Chairman of the National Republican Party. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia. Please go look there yourself to learn more.
Wiki:
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]
Though the “Solid South” had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party’s defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater[6][7] in the late 1960s.[8] The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began attempting to appeal to black voters again, though with little success.[8]
The Pope dies and is met @ the gates of heaven by St. Peter. He is greeted warmly by St. Peter who says he will personally show him to his housing for eternity. They approach a luxurious mansion and the Pope begins to smile broadly. But St. Peter keeps on walking to some modest row houses. St. Peter points to the 3rd row house and tells the Pope that’s his new home. The Pope is taken aback. He asks St. Peter if he’s certain this this is his place. St. Peter looks @ his housing log and says that is indeed his quarters. The Pope then inquires as to who lives in the mansion. St. Peter replies an attorney. The Pope is now visibly angry and asks sternly, “You mean I was the leader of the Catholic Church for 27 years. I dedicated my life to serving our Lord, and I get this little house and an attorney gets the mansion?” St. Peter gives a wry smile and says calmly, “You Eminence, we have a lot of Popes and Saints up here, but we only have the one lawyer.”
I believe that individual citizens right to a defense supercedes the operation of the Senate.
I’d begin arguing that with “We the people”. It’s not “We the Senate”. And I chose “operation” of the Senate because I’m not sure the Senate’s ability to Advise and Consent is strictly defined as a Right. I’m not a lawyer, though.
This is my opinion. I’d have to do research in order to present more support for my position. Or beg for some guidance from Mespo , Mike Appleton, or Raff.
In the meantime, I’m surprised that libertarians are not calling this a cause celebre. I thought individual rights were primary.
The Senate has a Constitutional duty to advise and consent, without looking it up, I think the wording includes the word shall. A right is something you can give up or have taken away, so I think you are right on that. 🙂
Just got brain enlargement treatment. So I could digest this topic.
I’ll skip the litigation shop talk. Try it, you might like it.
Jeffrey, Where would that “more credit” be applied? When you meet St. Peter?
Mespo, John Edwards was attacked during campaigns about being a plaintiff’s attorney. For all his faults I don’t remember him whining about it. All this whining about this ad? I’ll repeat, there are hundreds of worse ads than this.
Paul
Thanks for pointing out Advise and Consent is in the Constitution. Yes, it is.
Do you think the rights of the Senate should supercede Individual Rights?
This is not some miserable SC election dirty tricks. This is B A S I C.
Life and Death stuff. And they fu*ked up, and we let them fu*k it up. Nary a
peep out of us.
Not sure what nexus you are making between rights of the Senate and Individual Rights. Need more explanation.
Paul,
Every single American is entitled to a defense. Every. Single. American.
Further, this case carries the death penalty. The Death Penalty! And you’re okay with this?
The Senate was very clear on why he was turned down at the procedural level, yet. It was in no way a principled vote. It was ugly, cowardly politics.
And I’m typing on a respected and honored legal blog, this thing happened just a couple of weeks ago, and nobody knows about it.
Again.
I despair.
The nominee was Debo Adegbile to head Civil Rights division. I had the case wrong. He defended Mumia Abu Jamal who was on trial for murdering a Philly LEO in 1981.
There were some cowardly unAmerican Democrats, too. And every single Republican.
Disgusting. Simply utterly disgusting.
I despair of this country.
Guest,
I asked if he was running for office because you asserted MSNBC vilified Zimmerman’s defense attorney and seemed to be equating it with the Sheehen case. If he were running for office it would be as wrong for Democrats to vilify him as a defense attorney as the Republican party is doing to Sheehen. Was MSNBC vilifying Zimmerman’s defense attorney or the ‘defense’ itself?
is part of the Constitution. (sorry, typing while talking)
Advise and CONSENT is part That is a Constitutional Right guaranteed to the Senate.
Then why did you say “is Zimmerman’s attorney running for public office?” And what “straw man?” I was making the point that people excuse behavior as long as their “faction” is doing it.
I have not been able to read much on this at all.
BUT damn!
Obama just nominated an attorney to (I think) the Civil Rights DOJ. And every single Republican in the Senate has vowed to forever deny him that position.
Why?
Because the guy defended someone accused of being a terrorist. Can’t remember the guys name or where the trial was. Mespo? Appleton? Raff?
Can you help me here.
It is absolutely disgusting that we do not uphold our most basic rights.
l
Mespo-GREAT question. I’d submit they have the “right” to assess candidates on any criteria (dumb as the criteria might be) they choose, e.g. the electorate’s preference for tall politicians vs short. As we both know there are ambulance chasing attorneys that are decent and ethical and those that are scum. The same goes for attorneys representing corporations, and so on and so in. Perhaps it’s a reminder to all of us to judge people as individuals and not based on stereotypes.