Home Politics Rejection of Obama’s DOJ Nominee Means Trouble for Black Defendants The Senate’s rejection of Debo Adegbile’s nomination to lead the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division could have a chilling effect on defendants’ access to representation. BY: KELI GOFF Posted: March 10 2014 2:41 PM 1 13 Debo Adegbile during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill Jan. 8, 2014 ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES Debo Adegbile’s contentious confirmation hearings and failure to be confirmed as assistant attorney general for civil rights led one senior Democratic Senate aide to say that racial bias has cast a permanent pall over the confirmation process for black Obama nominees. But the treatment Adegbile faced, which the aide called a “smear campaign” and President Obama called “a travesty,” may ultimately have a long-term impact on all who are interested in pursuing careers in federal government, regardless of race. The reason ultimately used to deny Adegbile the post he sought was his involvement in a controversial pro bono case—that of Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing a police officer in 1982. History is filled with attorneys who later went on to extraordinary careers in politics and government who donated their time at some point in their careers to represent individuals or institutions that may not have been considered popular. But the message sent by Adegbile’s treatment is that if you represent someone controversial early in your career—even though the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to adequate representation—you may suffer professionally for it later. This means that poor defendants, many of whom are of color, may now have an even tougher time getting young attorneys—at least those hoping for a future in politics or government—to represent them, for fear of receiving the Adegbile treatment later in their careers. Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund—where Adegbile worked when he represented Abu-Jamal—told The Root that she does not believe Adegbile’s treatment will deter those who are passionate about pursuing civil rights law full time from continuing to do so. But it may deter those who pursue such cases occasionally on a pro bono basis, and that is troubling for defendants and the justice system. “There are a number of other lawyers who don’t practice in civil rights areas,” she said, “but who care deeply about issues of justice and who want to offer pro bono services in the civil rights arena, and I think [for] many of them—should they have ambition to be judges or to be working in government—this could give them pause.” Anthony Paduano, a partner at Paduano & Weintraub, a firm specializing in securities litigation, shares Ifill’s concern that Adegbile’s treatment could potentially deter young, talented attorneys. Paduano, who is white, recalled that as a young attorney, he worked on death-penalty cases for the NAACP LDF. Calling it “the first and finest civil rights law firm in the country,” he also said, “The fact that its work, broadly, is being held against a judicial nominee is chilling.” Later in his career, years after his work for the LDF, Paduano was awarded the Thurgood Marshall Award by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The award is named in honor of Thurgood Marshall, the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice and founder of the LDF. But Ifill speculated that Marshall, widely considered a legal legend, would be unable to be confirmed by the current Senate. Consider the list of cases that Marshall took on that were widely considered controversial at the time. His very first case attempting to integrate a public institution was in the early 1930s, decades before his litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 would help integration become the American norm. If Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) calls Adegbile an “extremist” and “radical,” then by the definition of societal norms in the first half of the 20th century, Marshall definitely would have been. So by modern-day standards, America’s highest court would likely have been deprived of a man who is widely considered one of the greatest legal minds our country has known. And he’s not the only one. Samuel Lebowitz was considered one of the greatest litigators of the 20th century, yet he chose to risk his own life and reputation to represent the Scottsboro Boys, nine black teens falsely accused of rape in 1931. They would not be formally pardoned until 2013, long after their deaths. Which means there were probably plenty who believed that Lebowitz, who was white, was a “radical” for representing them, and yet he was undeterred. Despite his involvement in the controversial case, Lebowitz would go on to serve as a judge in New York. It’s worth noting that he has been cited as an inspiration for the lead character, attorney Atticus Finch, in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird—and it’s safe to assume that Finch, though one of the greatest heroes of American fiction, would definitely be considered too radical to survive a confirmation process today. Although some might argue that cases like the Scottsboro Boys are things of the past, recent miscarriages of justice, such as the Central Park Five case, remind us that they are not. Which means that our country will always need dedicated attorneys willing to represent unpopular defendants. Page 1 of 2 NEXT PAGE > WE RECOMMEND White Teacher to Black Student: We Don’t Need Another Black President (The Root) Seattle Teen Apologizes to Cop Who Punched Her (The Root) Police: Pastor Raped Girl to ‘Take the Demons Out’ (The Root) Man Sentenced to Life Forgot He Was in Jail During Crime (The Root) LeVar Burton Disses Philip Seymour Hoffman on Twitter (The Root) Quote of the Day: Frederick Douglass on Biracial Children (The Root) MORE FROM OUR PARTNERS Signs Youre About To Get Dumped (Learnist) 5 Things You Miss From Childhood (Landmark News) Bradley Manning Sentenced to 35 Years, May Be Released In 8 Or Less (Learnist) Defense Budget Not Enough to Protect America (Landmark News) How To Avoid The Dreaded Tax Audit (Semantic Web) 7 Tricks to Relieve Your Enlarged Prostate (Prostate) Recommended by COMMENTS 2 comments Sign in30 Post comment as... Newest | Oldest Jed Clampett 1 minute ago ARTICLE: But the treatment Adegbile faced, which the aide called a “smear campaign” and President Obama called “a travesty,” may ultimately have a long-term impact on all who are interested in pursuing careers in federal government, regardless of race. The treatment Adegbile faced was not a smear campaign. This article is about a smear campaign: Charles Pickering Gets the Last Word A maligned civil rights hero, the changing South, and the future of the courts city-journal.org/html/ws2007-06-10hs.html QUOTE: But by far the most meaningful media defense of Pickering came from 60 Minutes in March 2004. Having been first blocked by the Judiciary Committee and, after overcoming that obstacle, denied a Senate vote by a Democratic filibuster, Pickering by now had taken his seat on the Fifth Circuit bench, albeit by a temporary recess appointment. He was initially torn about whether to cooperate with the show. “You know,” he understates, “when you’re southern and conservative and the national news media comes down, you cringe a little bit—and Mike Wallace did have a reputation.” But Wallace and his producer relished the chance to tell what, in their circles, was a man-bites-dog story: a southern conservative unjustly accused of racism. The clear star of the piece, aside from Pickering himself, was Charles Evers, one of several black defenders of the judge to make an appearance. After he’d finished his own interview before the camera, Evers asked if he could sit in on the next one, with Clarence McGee of the NAACP, one of the groups that had fought Pickering from the start. The result made for a riveting confrontation—and one that left the anti-Pickering forces revealed for what they were before a nationwide audience. “You know that Charles Pickering was the man that helped us break the Ku Klux Klan?” demanded Evers. “Did you know that?” In response, McGee stammered that, no, he hadn’t known that. EVERS: Well, I know that. Do you know about the young black man that was accused of robbing the young white woman? Do you know about that? McGEE: No. EVERS: So Charles Pickering took the case, came to trial, and won the case, and the young man became free. McGEE: I don’t know about that. EVERS: All right. But did you also know that Charles Pickering is the man who helped integrate his—his churches? Do you know about that? McGEE: No. “Well,” concluded Evers contemptuously, “you don’t know a thing about Charles Pickering.” “That young punk didn’t know nothin’ about nothing,” recalls Evers of the encounter now. “That’s all you gotta say in this country, a white man’s a racist, this white man hates black folks. Well, I could not let them destroy a white man just because he’s white, when I know different.” LikeReply Paul Pearce 9 minutes ago Just imagine if Keli Goff had any credibility. Hey - heres an idea! Dont shoot any cops in the face, and get caught, with multiple witnesses. What a crock this article is. With millions of lower profile Black kids who might actually benefit from some high $$ defense, the NAACP spends their time defending cop killers, and pursuing the innocent - like Duke Lax Hoax - for their own racist political interests. Now - poor widdle Keli Goff blames the victims - surprised that there was any blowback at all. Id be embarrassed to be in the same room as an NAACP lawyer - forget proud to put one in government. Just nasty. These guys are educated - they arent hood rats with no idea of the world. They are the worst type imaginable - smart men using their brains to promote evil. Disgraceful in their conduct, and their defense is disgusting. 1LikeReply
Posted on: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:45:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015