|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the beef with the ACLU? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Jaderis asked me to show evidence that the ACLU personally and professionally sought to undermine the nomination of Justices Roberts and Alito. 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.
Its apparently okay for the ACLU and all the other Justices that sway in their favor, but its not okay for a Justice or potential Justice to have a differing opinion than theirs. 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.
Did you not see the congressional hearing where Alito was scrutinized for three days straight? 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?
The point was that the Jaderis asked me to substantiate my claim that the ACLU has a history of picking cases that entail sedition. 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.
And being that they defend those accused only serves to prove that they have vested interests in what any reasonable person would consider anti-Americanism. 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.
I know the controversy surrounding the case, Crash. 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.
Look at the cases they take on. Cases where innocent people are being railroaded by the government. You still haven't explained what's "anti-American" about defending such a case.
Why would any one, least of all, me, want someone convicted of a crime they didn't commit when the true guilty party would still be out there committing more crimes? You tell me. Why do you call it "anti-American" to defend a person in such a case?
If parental consent for a medical procedure is needed in every other facet of life, why should this be different? 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.
Which avowed conservative was personally defended by the ACLU. This is all news to me. 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.
Where's the ACLU? Oh, right, they're against the school. 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.
Read up about the "Wren Cross" and tell me what you think of the First Amendment in that situation. 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The point was that the Jaderis asked me to substantiate my claim that the ACLU has a history of picking cases that entail sedition. That's a fact. And being that they defend those accused only serves to prove that they have vested interests in what any reasonable person would consider anti-Americanism. 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: Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Which avowed conservative was personally defended by the ACLU. This is all news to me. Rush Limbaugh Jerry Falwell Oliver North Just a few high profile cases. I'm not sure what 'personally defended' means so I ignored the personally part Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
A section of your first link, to the ACLU's defense of Rush...
(bolding mine)
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3939 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I'm not 100% but I think they are making a movie about the case. I'm not certain because I was standing in ckeck out line at a grocery store. That ought to be a sure fire hit. A smell a Grammy cooking up. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
the ACLU is one of the few large organizations with adequate resources that are consistently willing to take on these kinds of cases? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
not trying to tear down War memorials because, heaven forbid, there is a cross on site. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It is easy to say that you disagree with what I say yet would fight to the death to defend my right to say it. Yes, I would. I'm an American and that is my obligation and privilege to do so.
It is much harder to DO just that in the face of someone who says something grotesque such as NAMBLA. 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 like the fact that the ACLU does not compromise on the issue of Constitutionality. They will get their hands dirtier than dirt to fight for everyones basic rights even if you dont like who they defend. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
So could a public defender. 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 Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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. Would the ACLU defend someone that ran counter to their ideological view?
quote: Speech on Campus | American Civil Liberties Union Hell 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 Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024