ACLU
Gillian3
913 Posts
It's been a bit dull lately, so I thought I would liven it up. The ACLU is roundly panned as "un-American", leftist, etc. etc., but are they really? Some days ago I looked at their website and sampled some of the state web sites. Their theme is to protect the rights of all Americans and they profess to be non-partisan. A regular event is the challenge to city councils which try to regulate dialogue with citizens. Their position - you can regulate the time people have to speak and their behavior but not what they have to say. Here are some lawsuits or briefs filed on behalf of someone, all in 2004 or 2005:
Rights of the disabled to court access. There was no handicapped access to the bathroom among other things.
A challenge to a Secretary of State who prosecuted organizers of a voter discussion group - the group's purpose was to discuss the electoral college and how to strengthen 3rd parties.
On behalf of Rush Limbaugh to protect his medical records from the government. After they were on the losing end of the case, the press release stated "the celebrity isn't the issue, the privacy of medical records of all citizens is."
On behalf of police officers who, without their knowledge, were subject to camera surveillance in their locker room.
On behalf of the KKK - their views deserve to be heard.
On behalf of females at an ROTC event. Male cadets were required to wear their uniforms and medals, female cadets evening dresses.
On behalf of a supporter of a Libertarian candidate. He got a ticket when he held up a policital sign on a bridge. The sign said "No to Bush, No to Kerry, Yes to Badnarik".
On behalf of a woman who wanted to end her marriage, while she was pregnant, from her abusive husband.
Against a city which wanted to censor a Shakespeare play in a city park. The city had previously allowed plays which had sexual content and violence, but they thought citizens would be offended by stage blood.
The websites are full of cases of this nature. A very small minority are cases which most of us would view as controversial. Here are the questions: Are they really un-American and leftist? Are they partisan when they profess not to be? Why are they panned as "leftist" when the vast majority of their activity is to protect stuff that most of us view worthy of protection?
Rights of the disabled to court access. There was no handicapped access to the bathroom among other things.
A challenge to a Secretary of State who prosecuted organizers of a voter discussion group - the group's purpose was to discuss the electoral college and how to strengthen 3rd parties.
On behalf of Rush Limbaugh to protect his medical records from the government. After they were on the losing end of the case, the press release stated "the celebrity isn't the issue, the privacy of medical records of all citizens is."
On behalf of police officers who, without their knowledge, were subject to camera surveillance in their locker room.
On behalf of the KKK - their views deserve to be heard.
On behalf of females at an ROTC event. Male cadets were required to wear their uniforms and medals, female cadets evening dresses.
On behalf of a supporter of a Libertarian candidate. He got a ticket when he held up a policital sign on a bridge. The sign said "No to Bush, No to Kerry, Yes to Badnarik".
On behalf of a woman who wanted to end her marriage, while she was pregnant, from her abusive husband.
Against a city which wanted to censor a Shakespeare play in a city park. The city had previously allowed plays which had sexual content and violence, but they thought citizens would be offended by stage blood.
The websites are full of cases of this nature. A very small minority are cases which most of us would view as controversial. Here are the questions: Are they really un-American and leftist? Are they partisan when they profess not to be? Why are they panned as "leftist" when the vast majority of their activity is to protect stuff that most of us view worthy of protection?
Comments
Hopefully, they'll see fit to take on the next big elephant in the living room that no one will talk about: The Patriot Act.
By the way Beagle, did you know that sixteen of their attorneys refused to be involved in the KKK issue you cite? If they were truly impartial advocates for civil liberty, the case would have been routinely accepted. But, it was viewed as a political/social issue rather than one of law.
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin
How many of us want the Felon/No Vote law changed?
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin
In addition, the Pentagon has brought in a veteran staff attorney from the ACLU to serve as chief defense counsel in future military tribunals.
That story is breaking now at the premium, online, intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.
(Found this one too. LivindonSouth.)
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin
“One offended passerby does not amount to a violation of the Establishment Clause,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “The court rightfully rejected the argument that this monument promotes religion. It has been present for many decades in the corner of a city park without any complaints. It is perfectly constitutional, as has been argued in this case from the beginning.”
ADF-allied attorney Jeff Downing, of the Lincoln, Neb., law firm Keating, O’Gara, Davis & Nedved, helped defend the case, ACLU of Nebraska v. City of Plattsmouth, with lead attorney Frank Manion of the American Center for Law and Justice.
The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the granite monument, inscribed with the Ten Commandments, to the city in 1965. The monument stands in the corner of a 45-acre memorial park ten blocks from city hall. In 2001, the ACLU sued the city on behalf of an unidentified man who claimed the monument violated the so-called “separation of church and state,” even though the city did not routinely maintain the monument.
A federal district court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the ACLU, but the 8th Circuit panel reversed that decision, relying upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Van Orden v. Perry, which concerned a similar monument in Texas.
Today’s opinion states, “The Ten Commandments monument had stood on the Texas State Capitol grounds for forty years without legal challenge. In Justice Breyer’s view, ‘those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals…are likely to have understood the monument as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort’ to promote, endorse, or favor religion.”
“Like the Ten Commandments monument at issue in Van Orden,” the court added, “the Plattsmouth monument makes passive-and permissible-use of the text of the Ten Commandments to acknowledge the role of religion in our Nation’s heritage.”
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin
August 17th, 2005
Critics of the ACLU have long suspected that the organization hates Christians. Well, one ACLU official does his best to prove it:
It’s in the choice of words, but you decide.. is American Civil Liberties Union chief Joe Cook calling the Tangipahoa Parish School Board members a bunch of terrorists?
Cook was asked about a meeting Monday, during which the school board spoke to all teachers and workers about policy for this year, and had been asked by the ACLU to remind teachers to be extra careful not to allow prayer at school functions. This is what the ACLU chief had to say:
“They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London.”
Tangipahoa school officials tell reporters it’s ludicrous to compare the Tangipahoa school board’s “fight for religious freedom and freedom of expression in schools” with terrorist motivated attacks.
Note: I could copy and paste all night long, but I think you get the message, if you are remotely interested, which sadly, most people are not. The ACLU, if allowed to proliferate and permeate will destroy this country as we have known it for 230 years. And, that is the ultimate goal of liberals, Democrats and groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International. BEWARE and guard against this kind of stuff. Don't let fuzzy postings from liberals assuage you into a dozing state of not caring.
Now, I expect the only sort of rebuttal we will hear are those about the terrible actions of W, the ills of Christianity and how much better off we all might be without the US Department of Defense.
"What they are founded upon defines what they are. Their goal has not changed. Their history has only proven that they are experts at shielding themselves from prosecution. And I would say that they would be a pretty piss-poor collection of attorneys if they couldn’t shield themselves from prosecution.
But recently, they have been extremely opposed to the Patriot Act. And it requires one to wonder why.
They claim that it would interfere with the rights of Americans when in fact it would interfere with the abilities of terrorists to carry out their activities. By perverting the issue and turning it into a civil rights infringement, they are showing their desire to assist in terrorist operations against the United States.
Now it has come to light that the ACLU of Ohio has refused money from the United Way because the ACLU has a difficulty in filling out a Counter Terrorism form required by the Patriot Act. Interesting. Especially since they also refused to accept money from the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation because they refused to give assurances that those monies would not be used in defense of terrorists.
Defending terrorists is the new crusade of the ACLU. They have dispatched an army of attorneys to Guantanamo Bay in hopes to argue cases for the terrorists being held there to secure protections under the Geneva Conventions (which they don’t qualify for) or the United States Constitution (which they also don’t qualify for).
It would seem that aiding in the legal defense of terrorists who have declared war on the United States is a violation of Article III Section III of the United States Constitution.
Section. 3.
Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
And not only does the ACLU engage in protecting and aiding terrorists, but the child molesters at NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), Convicted Sex Offenders, pagans, wiccans, atheists, drug dealers, drug users, pornographers, child pornographers, Communists, Nazis, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and the list goes on and on.
How many times do you need to be slapped in the face before you get the idea that someone doesn’t like you? The ACLU has been slapping America in the face over 600 times a year since 1920. And we pay for them to do it.
If you believe that the ACLU receives no taxpayer money, you are on some of that dope that they want to make legal.
Every time the ACLU sues, it is a civil rights case. And if they should happen to win, they are eligible to receive taxpayer money to recover legal fees which would never have been billed to any client.
If they sue the City of Cleveland and win, the city can be forced to pay legal fees in addition to the damages awarded. Where does Cleveland get the money to pay? The taxpayers who work and live in Cleveland that’s where. And who suffers for this loss? The people who work and live in Cleveland that’s who.
Cities have to cut services when they lose these cases. Policemen get laid off, fire fighters get laid off, garbage collectors get laid off, the whole city loses.
And knowing that these cities know that if they should lose, they would have to cut services to their citizens, cities are less likely to actually allow the case to be heard in open court. So what happens? Cities capitulate to the will of the ACLU in fear of losing those fees.
If this isn’t terrorism then I don’t know what is."
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin
"Every time the ACLU sues, it is a civil rights case. And if they should happen to win, they are eligible to receive taxpayer money to recover legal fees which would never have been billed to any client."
DUH! It's the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION for cryin' out loud!
They are going to represent the neo-Nazis who conducted a peaceful concert 20 miles from my home yesterday, provided anything eventful had happened (if it did, it was because of the intolerant liberals who live here). They are going to represent my neighbor, Mr. Mayfield who was wrongly charged with responsibility under the Patriot Act for the Spain bombings last year - turns out the "partial print" they based their case on was WRONG. He is now, rightfully so, suing the US Government. The FBI has apologized for inconveniencing him. Bad news: The guy's a lawyer!
The ACLU's sole purpose is to fight for civil liberties, whether we personally agree with them or not! Their funding comes from winning cases, donations, all those distasteful, all-American, patriotic activities we all know and love! What part of the Bill of Rights do you not understand?
How in the Sam Hill do you expect they can continue to do their good - or evil, depending on your perspective - work?
I'm sure that if the Surgeon General had determined that deep fried turkey contained enough carcinogens to sink a battleship and outlawed the peaceful citizen's ability to cook their turkeys in such a manner, you would have been running to the ACLU to sue the Government on behalf of deep-fried-turkey-aficianados of America!
Sorry. Got a little verbose. Gillian, you need to fax me $5.00, 'cause you lost the pool on when Don would respond to this thread. I'm going to refund by fax $3.00 because I never thought his response would be so vociferous. x:-)
edit: I didn't mean vociferous. I meant ill-informed.
I am going to safe my handgun, remove anything from my home critical of the Patriot Act and wait placidly downstairs while the newly-empowered Patriot Act Police come to take me away to some correctional facility for an indeterminate amount of time during which I will not receive the advice of an attorney and call my boss tomorrow to tell him that I'm not sure when I will be able to come to work. Probably find myself terminated for violating the attendance policy. x;-)
The ACLU is smart enough to push their agenda with the appropriate slant of written verbage. And their mission statement requires that they take on just enough fuzzy-friendly-conservative types of cases to throw them up on billboards for the sake of soliciting contributions. But, again, as I always say, point out where my posting was wrong and let's go from there. For every case they presented or defended that won the hearts of a majority of Americans, they had 15 that had the opposite result.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the lead attorney for the ACLU for several years.
"Gentlemen, we're talking about rat sh*t when there are elephant turds lying all around". Dudy Noble, baseball coach and athletic director, Mississippi State University, circa 48-57.
The man was a visionary. He actually made the comment before he knew of parabeagle and gillian3.
I'm sure Rush would agree with you... x;-)
edit: By the way, couldn't help but notice that you hid behind the "what's wrong with my logic" mantra you so often use when I gave you a perfectly valid example of The Patriot Act's failure - Mr. Mayfield. The government screwed up and got caught with its pants down. What say you, Mr. D? x;-)
Your and the ACLU's logic would still have Zacheus paddling the streets in sandals with a pocket full of plastic explosives. Thank God 'The Government' 'over reacts'! The ACLU fought for two years to have HIM released because, they opined, he could not subpoena foreign witnesses who are terrorists to speak on his behalf. In case some have forgotten, he's the guy who tried to ignite his tennis shoes on a plane, the '21st hijacker'. Now there's a case of 'public money being put to wise use to defend the civil rights of the downtrodden'.
But there are people, obviously, who do support that kind of mentality.
The people who wrote the constitution would probably be appalled by the power that the executive branch now has.
Over reaction has not made this country any safer.
Ignoring or intentionally misinterpreting the law does not make this country safer. The "war of terrorism" may have created more terrorist rather than friends.
Finally, it is interesting that some many who argue that judges should not be activists, have no problem with a presidency that stretches the law.
I am all for liberty and protecting a person's civil rights. Just don't waste time trying to convince me that those notions should extend to people with explosive tennis shoes or alarm clocks wrapped in wire in a suitcase, or even those who meet a very specific profile and exhibit the behaviors consistent with the history of those who kill. I say detain them. If they check out, buy them a hamburger and tell them you're sorry to have detained them.
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
Charlie Chaplin
Don't know who said it, but I think it's pretty profound.
Whenever I start to feel blue, I start breathing again!
Parabeagle; I think that was Popeye the Sailor Man or maybe Foghorn Leghorn.
I personally view the ACLU as a group of out of touch blowhards, and I do not think that they would ever be able to understand what the majority of Americans believe in or feel, and do not have the ability to speak for me or defend me. It is a shame when the self serving interests of a few outweigh and are deemed more valuable than that of the many. Unfortunately, the many mostly do not speak out and do not look for the spotlight in order to make their sentiments known. Most people just comment, "That's a shame" or "I can't believe it came to this" and go on their merry way. Unfortunately, there are those here in this country that want to destroy the foundation of "being an American" because it does not fit into their mold of what is right and just. It is selfish for them to believe that the view through their glasses is the one that I want to see when I look through mine. There is no "greater good" anyomore, only the good that makes them comfortable and that is a sad commentary on where we have arrived.
I am not nearly as involved as I would like to be, as most would agree. I want to live my life without anymore involvement than necessary from the government, be it liberal or conservative (although I believe that the conservatives want to limit the amount of government involvement more than liberals, who believe I am a moron and cannot make my own decisions). I write letters to my representatives, I attend meetings, and I contribute to those whose ideals closely resemble my own.
I listen to both conservative shows (I am conservative) and liberal shows. I think it is important to know both sides. But I am not foolish enough to say that one side speaks for me while the other does not. I listen and formulate my own opinions. I do not need for someone to tell me what I believe is right or wrong. My parents taught me that when I was a little kid. I do know that there are people that disagree with me, and I applaud them for their viewpoint, even though I feel they are wrong, because that is the freedom that we enjoy. But don't take my freedom (freedom, not right) to practice my religion when and where I choose or the manner in which I do so (be it a moment of silence in school or saying "Under God" in the Pledge), to share my views, and try to convince me that you are offended by my beliefs/morales, etc. Don't try to rewrite history by trying to erase that this country was founded on the ideal of personal freedoms (religion, speech) by removing any reference from the history books and public buildings. It may not be your opinion, but it is our past. Don't try to make an issue out of the failure of todays youth not being responsible when you tell teachers not to use red ink because it sends a negative message to kids, because it is not compassionate for someone to win and someone to lose, that if they can't pass the test, it was because the system failed them not because they did not take the responsibility to learn the material.
Sorry for the length, but The Don wanted to know my thoughts. There they are...
"Whenever I start to feel blue, I start breathing again!"
I think that was Benjamin Franklin, or Slappy White....I can't be sure.
My favorite quote from Mr. F. is "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Thanks for that post HRinFL. Well articulated. Hope Parabeagle doesn't go home from work, down a few and unload on you for your views. x:-)