Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 15, 1999)
on rT-l r";.. ;;*,v -V; L i CL r™**i EDITOR Erin Gibson OPINION EDITOR Cliff Hicks EDITORIAL BOARD Nancy Christensen Brad Davis Sam McKewon Jeff Randall Bret Schulte Our f VIEW Trial, what American people still support Clinton The scene: Friday afternoon. Clinton has just been acquitted by the senate on two arti cles of impeachment. The apology: “.. .how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did...” The question: “In your heart, sir, can you forgive and forget?” The answer: “I believe any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it.” Call it the most perfectly planted question in political history. Call it the best presidential acting since Ronald Reagan left office. Call it cheesy and pathetic. But whatever you call it, don’t call it wrong. The sentiments reflected in that brief ques tion and answer - regardless of how many stomachs they chum- reflected the mood of a nation Friday. According to a post-acquittal ABC News poll, most Americans thought the president was sincere in his apology. Most thought the charges against Clinton never warranted an impeachment trial. Americans were ready to * forgive and forget the whole intern shebang. Clinton’s approval rating hit 68 percent in polls - a remarkable level for any president, let alone one weathering impeachment. Hillary Clinton’s rating also was high. Most Americans gave higher approval rat ings to the Clintons than to Congress. These polls shed more light on the fact that the public detests the out-to-get-you game. Folks don’t like negative politicking, even when it’s based on legitimate criminal charges. Americans want to think the president is a good guy - or at least a good figurehead. They find the media offensive for invading his pri vacy, and they blame his trial on partisanship. Granted, most Nebraskans hold a different view on Clinton. But with their bandwagon topping out at 1.5 million, Nebraskans’ opin ions are a tad insignificant to the political nation. What’s significant, and what will be histor ically significant, is that most Americans who weren’t apathetic to the senate trial continu ously supported the second American presi dent to be impeached. They pitied him and called him a victim - just as he intended. They pitied his family, who found its dirty laundry airing nightly on the nightly news. They pitied everyone “attacked” and maligned by investigator Kenneth Star. Clinton’s emerging as a victor is confound ing, but two facts are clear. First, that the trial’s outcome shows public support for their president is stronger than the man himself, negative politics and Congress. Second, that one late-show comedian might have gotten it right. As a mock Clinton said on the Conan O’Brien Show: “You can impeach the president, but you can’t impeach the love.” Ealitavfial timonai roiicy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Spring 1999 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoin, its employees, its student body or the University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author. The Board of Regents serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, supervises the production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student employees. Letter Policy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guarantee their publication. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submitted. Submitted material becomes property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Those who submit letters must identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or group affiliation, if any. Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lincoln, NE. 68588-0448. E-mail: letters@unlinfo.unl.edu. I-1' 1 m 1 <?2SS5S52SfjaB? DN LETTERS And STAY out! We are writing this letter as a response to the two columns written by Tim Sullivan which address decisions made by Gary Lacey, the Lancaster County Attorney. While it is true that we work for Gary, we are not writing this letter at the behest of Mr. Lacey. Rather, we are writing in an attempt to encour age Mr. Sullivan to fully research the issues and facts before he publicly dis parages a public servant and publicly embarrasses the law school. First, Mr. Sullivan asserts that Stacy Williams was denied permission to par ticipate in the Criminal Clinic because of a “private dispute between Gary Lacey and Herb Friedman.” However, if Mr. Sullivan would have taken the time to fully research the facts, or better yet, apply common sense to die situation, he would have realized that the decision had nothing to do with a pri- N vate conflict. At the time Stacy Williams wanted to participate in the Criminal Clinic, there was a real and present possibility that both Gary Lacey and Lancaster County, among others, would be named as defen dants in a lawsuit by Herb Friedman. The threat of a lawsuit did, and continues _ to, exist This type of obvi ous conflict is so basic that one does not need to resort - to quoting the ethical rules to justify the action of Mr. Lacey. However, if we must resort to the ethical rules, allow us to develop the facts fur ther. First, the Friedman Law «tr ^ Office does in fact repre- * sent defendants in criminal cases prosecuted by the Criminal / Clinic. DR 5-109, the ethical canon '/ cited by Mr. Sullivan, speaks to conflicts between current and^j former employers. The type-^ll of conflict involved with Mr. Williams is a conflict between two current employers. This type of conflict is so obvious that the ethical rules do not even speak to it directly. Second, Mr. Sullivan failed to mention that the Lancaster County Attorney’s Office handles all of the Countyk civil litigation as well as crim inal prosecutions. The Friedman Law Office, on occasion, represents plain tiffs who have sued, or are suing, the County. Therefore, allowing Stacy Williams to work for Lacey (defen dant), while at the same time working for Friedman Law Office (plaintiffs’ attorney) would violate the ethical can non which states that “a lawyer should avoid even the appearance of profes sional impropriety.” Canon 9. In regard to the“long hair*’ issue, we again believe that Mr. Sullivan should fully research die law before criticizing Mr. Lacey’s actions. In order for Mr. Lacey’s decision to constitute illegal discrimination, people with long hair would have to be a protected class of individuals. Characteristics such as race, gender, religion, and national ori gin are the type that qualify one as a member of a protected class. In fact, courts have even expressly held that it is permissible to make employment deci sions based on the length of a male’s hair. See, e.g., Harper v. Blockbuster, i\v \ * i . < / 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Mr. Laceyfe decision was well within the bounds of the law. Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Sullivan’s argument overlooks the prac tical realities of a prosecutor’s office. The County Attorney is charged with prosecuting cases by trying them to either judges or juries, both of which take issues of credibility seriously. It is naive to think that judges and juries do not take someone’s appearance into account when judging credibility. Mr. Lacey must be able to maintain a certain standard of appearance for those that represent him in die courtroom. The job of the County Attorney’s Office is to prosecute criminals and defend the county, not to educate law students. It is not accurate for Mr. Sullivan to think that the Criminal Clinic is simply anoth er wing of the ivory towers of the law school where some believe that the real life impact of personal appearance and poise do not matter. Students in the Criminal Clinic are prosecutors who happen to be senior-certified law stu dents. Gary Lacey did the right thing. Josh Nauman, Joe Wilkins, Terry Meinecke, Michelle Dreesen, Dan Packard and Brea Quindt Lancaster County Attorney law clerks / UNL law students Dear-Sen. Kerrey I would like to thank you for your “acquittal” vote on die impeachment of President Clinton. I am the school board president of a pre-k through 6th-grade pri vate school and a father of four children, three girls and one boy. I have made it my business to insure my children and oth os receive a quality education in ^ fundamentals like reading, math, vC sciences and history. I’m having teachers present Medal of Honor H citations in history classes as ^ examples of what sacrifices and ' bravery are needed for our country. You will be proud to note that your action today in voting to keep President Clinton in office will probably be ► remembered by more peo * pie than you and your SEAL team’s sacrifices that night in Southeast Asia. God, you and your SEAL team must be so proud of that fact We both know how much President Clinton appreciates die sacrifices made by servicemen and you brave Democrats in the House and Senate. I can assure you that at every opportunity I will never fail to place Sen. Kerrey, the Medal of Honor and President William Jefferson Clinton together. Frank L. Colunga, M.D. MattHaney/DN
