What's the beef with the ACLU?

I didn't see anything personal in the ACLU press releases you linked, so no, you haven't done that. The press releases are cogent arguments that the judicial track records of those two men don't represent a constitutionally-positive attitude towards civil freedoms. Some "differing opinions" are flat-out wrong, and inappropriate for a Justice on the Supreme Court. For instance, a justice that believes that the President holds unitary powers above and beyond those specified in the Constitution that descend from the powers traditionally afforded to kings - as Alito and Roberts maintain, following Alberto Gonzales's lead - are unsuitable for the SCOTUS. And certainly a man with no more than 2-3 years experience in Federal courts is unqualified to sit as Chief Justice. He was supposed to just get a pass and walk into his seat?Why on Earth do you think that was what was supposed to happen? No, you were asked to defend your assertion that the ACLU defends sedition.You haven't done that, which is why you're trying to misrepresent what you were asked to support. I've asked you this several times now, and you refuse to answer. What's "anti-American" about defending someone in a court of law?Of course, the materials you've presented actually prove something else - they prove the ACLU's contention that our government has a nasty habit of accusing innocent people it doesn't like of committing "anti-American" activities, and then trying to ensure conviction by making those people too unpopular to defend. Thank goodness the ACLU won't be bullied by the government or by the immature. Then answer the question. How is it "anti-American" to defend an innocent person against being railroaded by the government? I can't think of anything more American than that. Cases where innocent people are being railroaded by the government.You still haven't explained what's "anti-American" about defending such a case. You tell me. Why do you call it "anti-American" to defend a person in such a case? Because if you're old enough to have sex you're old enough to make other decisions about your body. Honestly the idea of needing to get parental consent for an abortion disgusts me. It turns my stomach.And it's not on-topic in this thread. I can kick your ass all around another thread on the subject, if you wish. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Jerry Falwell... the list goes on and on. Of course, none of that prevents those figures from continuing to trash the ACLU. Nemesis...What the fuck are you talking about? The ACLU defended the school. Did you even read your own link? Did you miss us talking about this issue? When I read it I couldn't, for a moment, understand what the fuck you were talking about because the ACLU defended the rights of the school to not have to forfeit games that landed on the Sabbath.What the hell are you on about? You're proving my point - conservatives don't have a factual basis to attack the ACLU - so they make up their own facts. I'm sorry, I guess I didn't realize I couldn't take down a cross in my own chapel, of my own volition, without triggering a Constitutional crisis. I can't see, however, where the ACLU became involved. Moreover, some perceptive student was able to put their finger on what exactly is wrong with you:

quote:

---

"Some of these people that are upset about the cross issue have a notion that it is a predominantly Christian community and Christians have more rights than other people," Blayton said.

---

Of course, that's exactly the position of conservatives - Christianity is so special that it's only equal to other religions when it's set above them; and treating Christianity the same as any other religion is unfair and infringes on its rights. You've really got a messed-up worldview, NJ.

You didn't substantiate your claim. I explained how the majority of the cases that you mentioned are not sedition case, but free speech cases. If anything, I'd say that those who were prosecuting people for exercising their First Amendment rights were violating the Constitution, not those accused.And, as far as "any reasonable person" considering sedition anti-American, let me ask you a question. Ever heard of Thomas Jefferson? A lot of people consider him to have been a pretty reasonable person. Here's what he had to say:

quote:

---

I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. -- Letter to James Madison (January 30, 1787); referring to Shays' Rebellion

​

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787)

​

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights. -- Letter to Richard Price (January 8, 1789)

---

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I must say, I'm completely at a loss to understand why you bring up the Wren Cross in this thread. From all that appears in the article, it was the school making its own decision based on things that it considered significant. There was no mention whatsoever of the ACLU.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Rush LimbaughJerry FalwellOliver NorthJust a few high profile cases.I'm not sure what 'personally defended' means so I ignored the personally partEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

A section of your first link, to the ACLU's defense of Rush...(bolding mine)

quote:

---

The ACLU of Florida's Simon added: "For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view."

​

"We have defended the rights of every group on the political spectrum from anti-war protesters and Oliver North to church-state separation activists and Jerry Falwell," Simon noted.

---

Based solely on what nemesis has posted the following things seem obvious:First, all of his other points were getting soundly refuted time after time.Second, it moves the goal posts.Third, it looks on the surface like it might support his position and perhaps he heard some Conservative Commentator mention it.Fourth, he has not bothered actually reading about the case so he does not realize that

1. it has nothing to do with the ACLU
2. it is not a Liberal Conspiracy
3. it is not an attack on Christianity
4. it is being handled internally at W&M
5. it is supported by students, faculty and religious leaders from the community

Fifth, it is another attempt to misdirect the audiences attention so they do not notice him palming the pea.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I'm fairly convinced that he picked those cases from some website or other and didn't really read them. It's annoying that he apparently still hasn't read them even after their inapplicability has been amply demonstrated, but then again, he's not really the kind of guy to back off a position very often, no matter how well it's been refuted.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Yea, I doubt NJ is making this stuff up but rather trusting in sources that make this stuff up. The link I posted to point out that the SDA boys basketball case was backwards was the first link in a Google search of "ACLU Oregon Basketball".Honestly, I think that all NJ needs to be a better debater is some better reference searching skills and a desire to look at more than just the first source he finds for something.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

And a desire to actually read the original source material, rather than relying on what some agenda-driven website has to say about it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Yeah, I bet the soundtrack'll be fantastic.Damn, NJ. At least get the facts in your lame jokes right.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

So could a public defender. "If you do not have an attorney, one will appointed to you." By the way, it was the ACLU that won the case making it mandatory for law enforcement officials to issue a Miranda Warning every time they are about to ask incriminating questions. I think its a fine law and one that truly embodies the spirit of civil rights-- not trying to tear down War memorials because, heaven forbid, there is a cross on site. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Are you talking about the Mojave Cross case?First, that case has been judged and the Government was found at fault. The Government then tried an end around by transferring the piece of property to a private party using part of the DOD appropriations bill. The Courts caught that them at that shell game trick too.And by the way, it was not some liberal ACLU plot, but Judges appointed by Republicans, one by Reagan himself.Do you ever actually check any of the things you post?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, I would. I'm an American and that is my obligation and privilege to do so. I want to make this very clear because for some reason this keeps being overlooked. I agree, 100 percent, that NAMbLA or an even more squalid group has every right to a defense. My issue is that the ACLU specifically chooses these cases. They willingly and intentionally pick these cases. Explain why that is when there are countless cases out there where someone or an organizations civil rights have been violated. I think that is the general perception, something they certainly want the masses to believe. Even supposing their motives are as honorable as you say, it does not mean they are not misguided in their application.For instance, the interpretation of "free speech" is so broad that the Supreme Court has ruled flag burning as Constitutionally protected. But that's not speech. That's behavior-- destructive behavior at that. And before you ask, I believe fully that any one may despise the United States if they so desire. That's not my legal issue with it. My personal issue is that its childish and pointless. But that's just my personal feelings which isn't any more or less valid than their feeling. The issue is that its destructive. And interestingly enough, in virtually every city in the US, there are ordinances that stipulate that nothing is to be burned within the confines of public square... Nothing, except flags.Secondly, the freedom of speech that the ACLU insists upon is an extremely broad interpretation. The reality is, we are not allowed to say whatever we want. Case in point: Can I scream, "Bomb! Bomb!" in an airport? No, I can't. Is my freedom of speech being limited? Absolutely not. If I call up the President right now and say, "I'm gonna kill you you neocon fascist pig!" No, I can't. That isn't freedom speech.But most interestingly, one group cannot even so much as disagree with abortion or homosexuality without immediately being branded as "hate speech." Well, hang a minute. Speech is speech, right? We're allowed to voice out opinion right? Would they ACLU defend someone that ran counter to their ideological view? Hell no they wouldn't. And this goes right along with what I was saying from the beginning; that the ACLU picks and chooses the cases they want to represent that is in line with their personal and professional views. That's more than obvious.I really find it objectionable that people are still trying to pretend that the ACLU, whether they are great defenders of the Constitution or not, is certainly in line with a specific, partisan ideology.Does anyone here disagree that the ACLU is a leftist organization? Does anyone disagree with that?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This of course ignores the many, many disputes that the ACLU steps into that are not criminal. Or are you not aware that the public defender is only for criminal cases?What's more, there isn't a public defender's office in this country that isn't hopelessly understaffed and overworked. Other than capital cases, it's nearly impossible for a public defender to devote the 100s of hours that it takes to handle a difficult or groud breaking Constitutional Law case to a single case.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Would the ACLU defend someone that ran counter to their ideological view?

quote:

---

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

​

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. ... [T]he ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

​

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. ...

​

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten.

---

Speech on Campus | American Civil Liberties UnionHell yes, they do!If I were responding to anyone else, I'd expect an immediate retraction. From you, I expect extended silence.Edited by subbie, : To escape the wrath of Admin.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat