Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the beef with the ACLU?
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 1 of 199 (382803)
02-06-2007 1:41 AM


Rather than drag an interesting discussion off topic I wish to propose this topic:
In Message 178, Nemesis Juggernaut repeatedly asserts that the ACLU is "atheist," "diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian morals" and "would rather die that hire a Christian zealot" and while I have no issue with the last statement (as "zealot" often implies insanity and I am sure they do not want to hire mentally instable people of any stripe) I would really like to know NJ's and/or others support for this sentiment.
My first question would be - Have you (and I am using you in the general sense, directed to anyone who agrees with NJ, not just NJ himself) never even visited the ACLU's website? Do you really not know of all the work the ACLU has done in support of freedom of religion and defending various churches in court?
Examples:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks
Louisiana Court Affirms Christian Protester's Free Speech Rights
ACLU of New Jersey Applauds Ruling in Favor of Student's Right to Sing "Awesome God"
ACLU of Virginia Defends Federal Law Guaranteeing Religious Rights of Prisoners
ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries
And the list goes on and on and on.
I only listed the ACLU defending Christians above to prov a point. They defend Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Wiccans, Atheists, etc, etc. IOW, EVERYONE.
You will find among these cases, of course, cases where the ACLU also takes on Christians, but only when they try to impose their particular brand of religion on others (sometimes thru the government - take the ten commandments in courthouses issue or distributing Bibles in schools, for example and sometimes all by themselves - requiring inmates in drug rehab programs to convert in order to successfully complete the program) or engage in discriminatory or otherwise illegal practices.
My second question would be - if you hadn't been to the ACLU's website and/or didn't know about these above cases, then how did you form your opinion about the ACLU? Did you hear it on a talk show or from your pastor or just in passing? Did you form it all by yourself? If the last one, how?
My third question would be - if you did know of the above cases (or others like them), then how can you honestly believe that the ACLU is "diametrically opposed" to Christianity?
My last question would be - do you understand the Establishment Clause?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
While the ACLU definitely fights against government endorsement of religion (whether it is tacit or overt), many people seem to forget that the ACLU also fights for the people's right to freely exercise their religion, whatever it may be.
Social Issues or Coffee House, please.
Edited by Jaderis, : fixed message link

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-06-2007 7:57 AM Jaderis has not replied
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 02-06-2007 9:41 AM Jaderis has replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 02-06-2007 1:45 PM Jaderis has not replied
 Message 14 by petrophysics1, posted 02-07-2007 9:43 AM Jaderis has replied
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-07-2007 12:58 PM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 9 of 199 (382911)
02-06-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
02-06-2007 9:41 AM


Re: This Post will spark a debate!
I agree with you and have no issues with the ACLU except when they mess up some Christmas play simply because little Suzy Whiner is atheist and her activist Daddy doesn't want the play to bring up any mention of religion even when its a cultural issue rather than a religious one.
Could you please provide evidence for the ACLU "messing up" Christmas plays? I know alot of schools have opted out of Christmas plays, but could you provide me with a case where the ACLU actually prevented Christmas plays from occuring?
I think the ACLU often goes too far
When? And who gets to define "too far?"
I abhor the KKK, but the ACLU defends them. I do not, however, think they are going too far because I believe in the right to free speech, no matter who is speaking.
I suspect that sometimes the ACLU supports a case not to win, but to set parameters. For example, they might file in a nativity display case not to ban nativity displays outright but to establish acceptable rules surrounding such a display (Is it accompanied or allowed to be accompanied by other holiday symbols? Is anyone allowed to erect a display without getting prior approval from a government entity providing it correlates with the holiday season? What kind of disclaimers, if any, are necessary? Are taxpayer funds used to maintain the displays? etc). This may not always be the case, but it seems likely to me.
but I am no proponent of a strict secular humanist government even though it may be the fairest way.
If it is the fairest way, then why do you oppose it?
How else would you propose we live in such a religiously diverse nation?
Its like forcing a business to spend lots of money to build wheelchair bathrooms when there is only one wheelchair person in the old darn town! Sometimes, bending over backwards to appease one minority is ridiculous in the inconveniences it fosters on the rest.
In that case, it only "inconveniences" the owner of the business and then, only monetarily. Also, in the case of new businesses, it doesn't require "lots of money" at all. Just a slightly bigger stall and a handrail. Handicapped bathrooms do not inconvenience the rest of us in the slightest. They even help more than the permanently disabled. The elderly, pregnant women, people temporarily injured or recovering from surgery, obese people and others can garner a benefit from a larger stall and/or the handrail.
Besides, can you not imagine the daily inconveniences suffered by those in wheelchairs? The extra expense that requires from their own pocket just to get by?
What a selfish outlook that is to gripe about nominal expenses "forced" on someone to help make someone's already extremely difficult life a little easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 02-06-2007 9:41 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 02-06-2007 12:19 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 19 of 199 (383182)
02-07-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by petrophysics1
02-07-2007 9:43 AM


This is simply untrue and was not the origional intent of the Constitution. You and I and the ACLU all know that clause was inserted to prevent the establishment of a Federal( US) church. Let's stop pretending otherwise.
You are correct that the 1st Amendment only applied to Congress and Federal law, however a subsequent amendment applied it to the state and local governments as well.
From The First Amendment Center
quote:
For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law... .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.
Again the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
This means not only is the government forbidden to establish a national (or state or local since the passage of the 14th Amendment, or ,rather, subsequent court enforcements of it) church, but that they cannot promote (respect) one religion over another. This has been established several times in the last 215 years.
So let's stop pretending that the Founders really wanted the government to promote any religion and didn't understand the danger inherent in government sponsorship of one religion over another(even "non-sectarian" religion since that implies Christian sects)
I am not the one trying to change the meaning of this clause, but you and the ACLU appear to be doing just that. Some reason I should blindly accept your new interpretation of this clause?
It's not my interpretation, but the interpretation of numerous court decisions, countless lawmakers, multitudes of private citizens and Thomas Jefferson himself (among other Founders).
In order to ensure that ALL people are free to exercise their religion, the government cannot endorse or appear to endorse ANY religion over another. This protects your religion as well. Since the government cannot interfere with the free exercise of your religion and does not collect taxes from religious establishments, it cannot respect it either. The church is not required to pay taxes and should not, therefore, be able to use taxes or grounds paid for by taxes to promote their particular brand of religion.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot be exempt from public responsibility and still expect public support.
BTW, that clause did not prevent individual states from having State Churches. Massachusetts had a State Church (Congregationalists) until 1830 as I recall, supported by tax dollars. It was never declared unconstitutional, but the law was changed.
This is true. The Establishment Clause did not apply to the states until much later. See my quote from the First Amendment Center above.
Read all of the above Library Of Congress exhibit, then come back and support "the ACLU definitely fights against government endorsement of religion (whether it is tacit or overt)" from a Founding Father's/historical perspective in regards to what the Constitution actually states.
I read the accompanying text and will delve into the documents (those I can actually read...alot of them are undecipherable) later.
from your link:
quote:
Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.
James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.
Yes, that's one quote out of many pages, but I found nothing in the many pages in the exhibit to support your position that the Constitution allows for government sponsorship of religion.
You may rail against the interpretation of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court, but I'm sure the Founding Fathers did not intend for slavery to end or for blacks to be able to vote or even be considered "whole" people. Do you also disagree with these interpretations of the 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment brought the individual States under the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights and this includes the Establishment Clause.
I have a question for you.
Do you believe we should have more or less government interference in our lives (i.e. "Big Government" or "Small Government)?
BTW, could you also please address the rest of my OP? I'm sure everyone would appreciate it, especially me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by petrophysics1, posted 02-07-2007 9:43 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 34 of 199 (383269)
02-07-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
02-07-2007 12:58 PM


Re: The ACLU
A little history lesson: The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin who made it clear what his intentions for the ACLU and the nation of the United States of America were. He says,
“I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” -Roger Baldwin
Well, like Dan said, Roger Baldwin denounced Communism in 1939.
Harvard Square Library bio
Wiki bio
Furthermore, an organization does not always necessarily represent its founder's personal views in its current workings and philosophies (even more so when the founder dramatically changed his views whilst still holding the reins of his organization).
The spin of the ACLU is that they are a non-partisan organization. This is the portrayal they want the average American to see and believe. Of course, that's beyond ridiculous as evidenced by their extreme slant to partisan belief.
How are civil liberties a partisan issue?
Here is how the ACLU "scores" Congressman and state Representatives , as if that has anything to do with the defense of civil liberties that they feel so obligated to take on.
The scorecard reports the representatives voting record on specific bills, not their stance on the issues in general. Certain bills go through Congress that would strip us of liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. It should not matter what ones stance is on the "War on Terror" to know that unwarranted searches and surveillance are infringements on personal privacy and a violation of the 4th amendment (bills on library searches, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping were on the scorecard).
Again, civil liberties should not be a partisan issue. I don't see your problem with the ACLU scorecard.
Interestingly enough they have tried to stymie every Supreme Court Justice who didn't conform to their brand of politics.
Evidence, please.
They regularly take on cases that not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide and abet them.
Evidence, please.
They take on cases that support extreme patronage where an offender has been clearly indicted for a crime.
Evidence, please.
Being the spin doctors they are they find ways to paint a picture that doesn't exist to make it sound as if there are nefarious purposes at hand. They will hold somebody up in the spotlight in order to make the defendant seem like a Robin Hood, launching their iconic status in order to subvert the status quo.
Evidence, please.
(pssst...sometimes the "status quo" isn't all it's cracked up to be)
They defend child pornographers and institutions who support crimes against children.
Evidence, please.
They defend live sex acts irrespective of where and when. They have an unwaivering support of all forms of abortion, even partial birth abortion, and have the gall to now call it "reproductive freedom." They take on religious groups that want to display Nativity scenes, as if displaying baby Jesus is the crime of all crimes. They hate the boyscouts of America for crying out loud. They want all borders to be open, seemingly incapable of understanding the implications that would directly affect them. So on, and so on.
Evidence, please, please, please and please.
I have provided links to support my contentions. Please refrain from making bare assertions.
All of this they do under the banner of "freedom." They view themselves and want to be seen in romantic terms of the underdog who stands firm against a sea of oppressive political opposition-- you know, like all Communist groups do. The reality is they just want to subvert the status quo and to erode the United States from within because the US stands for everything they are against.
What exactly does America stand for that they are against?
And again, the status quo is not always what it is cracked up to be.
Racial segregation was once the status quo and all the horrors that came along with it.
Being able to rape and/or beat your wife with impunity was once the status quo.
I notice that you posted cases taken on by the ACLU who protected certain religious institutions. While its true that the ACLU takes on certain cases, its little more than social pittance, and they don't have warmhearted motives for doing it. They take on these cases to keep up the appearance of non-partisanship.
Huh? Do you have any evidence for anything you are saying or is it all just tin-foil hat speculation?
But their defense of such cases is usually geared towards some individualistic right they have manifested in their minds.
What does that even mean???
For instance, the ACLU of Oregon recently took on a case against a Christian school. Apparently, this private school observes the Sabbath. Long story short, their basketball team did very well and were scheduled to go to the championships. The school said that if the championship was to be played, they would have to schedule it on a day other than the Sabbath. A few students protested that reached the ears of the players. Naturally, the ACLU jumped all over it.
Naturally? How?
So now the ACLU is wrong to force an entity to cater to religion?
Would you disagree if the tournament was scheduled on Easter Sunday?
I'm not sure what civil liberty is at stake here unless the OSAA falls under the jurisdiction of ORS 659.850
quote:
659.850 Discrimination in education prohibited; rules. (1) As used in this section, “discrimination” means any act that unreasonably differentiates treatment, intended or unintended, or any act that is fair in form but discriminatory in operation, either of which is based on age, disability, national origin, race, marital status, religion or sex.
(2) No person in Oregon shall be subjected to discrimination in any public elementary, secondary or community college education program or service, school or interschool activity or in any higher education program or service, school or interschool activity where the program, service, school or activity is financed in whole or in part by moneys appropriated by the Legislative Assembly.
(3) The State Board of Education and the State Board of Higher Education shall establish rules necessary to insure compliance with subsection (2) of this section in the manner required by ORS chapter 183. [Formerly 659.150]
The law mentions "inter-school activity" and public school sports teams (private schools are not covered in the section) are also organized by the OSAA and most likely receive "moneys appropriated by the Legislative Assembly" so I would hazard a guess that they do fall under this law.
I am not legal scholar, though.
It doesn't seem like rescheduling would put undue hardship on the OSAA or the other teams (unless they move it to Sunday Do you see the problem with trying to place one religion above another??)
Back on topic tho. What exactly about this case proves your assertion that the ACLU is "atheist," "diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian morals" or is out to "subvert the status quo and erode the US from within?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-07-2007 12:58 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2007 5:12 PM Jaderis has not replied
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 12:24 PM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 37 of 199 (383274)
02-07-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
02-07-2007 1:46 PM


Re: The ACLU
He simply went underground with his beliefs to avoid detection from McCarthy's own social cleansing.
Funny how 1939 is 8 years before Joseph McCarthy became a US Senator and 11 years before he really stepped up his campaign to blacklist Communists. Was Roger Baldwin psychic, too?
Even in the event he tried "purge" communism from the ACLU, (which is consequently against people's civil rights),
Hey, nobody's perfect. (Oh, wait, I thought you were *for* allowing private organizations to decide who gets to work for them...hmmm)
But, again, the founder's personal beliefs do not always have any bearing on the current manifestations of his organization. Putting Roger Baldwin in a bad light really has no relevance to the ACLU as an organization, no matter how much you hate them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-07-2007 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 38 of 199 (383276)
02-07-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dan Carroll
02-07-2007 1:59 PM


Re: The ACLU
Dan writes:
Ten years before McCarthyism? Seven years before McCarthy even became a senator? Wow! Not only was Baldwin a godless communist bent on destroying America, he also had pyschic powers!
Cool!
Jaderis writes:
Funny how 1939 is 8 years before Joseph McCarthy became a US Senator and 11 years before he really stepped up his campaign to blacklist Communists. Was Roger Baldwin psychic, too?
Now I know it's true love!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-07-2007 1:59 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 46 of 199 (383305)
02-07-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
02-07-2007 3:45 PM


Re: The ACLU
That's exactly the fallacious assault they want to portray. Name some Republicans that want subvert the Judicial branch with Justices who take a counter-Constitutional view of liberty in America. Or even better, name me the Justices that run counter to the Constitution. If that's considered off topic, then open a new thread.
Yes, that is off-topic.
In fact, you may or may not have heard of Lynne Stewart, attorney of terror suspect, Omar Abdel Rahman, otherwise known as the Blind Sheik. Not only did Stewart defend the Sheik and gush over him during their meetings, but she also criminally aided and abetted the man by offering to smuggle out orders of a call to Fatwah against targets listed by the Rahman.
Details of the case aside (I do not want this thread to devolve just yet), you attributed the "aiding and abetting of terrorists" to the ACLU. Lynne Stewart, as you mention here, was a member of the National Lawyers Guild. Did you mistake the ACLU for the NLG or do you have actual evidence that the ACLU "aids and abets" terrorists?
Crash, wake up please. Of course they aren't going to overtly defend that which is unambiguously criminal. They are going to say that they don't agree with the lifestyle, but feel obligated to defend child pornographers against the onslaught of the justice system. the ambivalence with which people, much like yourself, regard the ACLU is truly astounding.
You missed the part where he said that the ACLU has never defended an ACTUAL child pornographers.
Now, where does the NAMbLA fit in with all of this? There was a book sponsored by NAMbLA about techniques used to lure children in by gaining their confidence. Not only was this piece of literature found in the possession of the two murderers, but the techniques used by the murderers were identical and sequential to the techniques employed by Jaynes and Sicari. In this way, NAMbLA is just as indictable for criminal negligence as any book, like the Anarchist's Cookbook, that teaches people how to make homemade bombs. Of course its the ACLU that chose to defend this case. If I was a lawyer and I was assigned to the case, I would defend my clients. However, to actively pursue heinous crimes because it goes against the status quo speaks volumes about the nefarious minds that work and support the ACLU.
The ACLU does not advocate NAMBLA's stance. They do however believe that they have a right to have such a stance. They were not defending Jaynes' and Sicari's actions, but NAMBLA's right to voice their opinions.
Just like the KKK has a right to voice their opinion. Just like William Pierce had the right to voice his opinion and the Turner Diaries remains on the shelves to this day.
Just because you disagree (even if you disagree vehemently) with what somebody else says does not mean that they do not have the right to say it.
Besides, I thought conservatives were all for "personal responsibility." Doesn't blaming behavior on a book (or a song or a movie or a TV show) run counter to that belief?
No, it isn't. That's calling one thing something else to water it down.
I suppose you would rather they call it "baby killing?"
I always find it funny when conservatives scoff at word play when they can use terms like "compassionate" and "surge" and "enemy combatants" and "collateral damage" with a straight face.
Crash, what they want to do is completely change the Boyscouts of America. They want to change all of the policies-- the very policies that makes the Boyscouts of America what it is! Who are they to intrude on a private organization? I don't even know what they are crying about. The Boyscouts have already been hijacked. Its only a matter of time before it completely synthesizes in the way they want.
If a private organization wishes to exclude certain people protected under anti-discrimination laws then they should become completely private entities and accept no subsidy or grant from the government.
LOL! Yeah Crash, that's what they want you to believe. Its the military who preserves the right for you to talk smack about the nation, not the ACLU. The ACLU defends those who will bring down, what it calls, "The Establishment." Anything associated with the Establishment, is thereby fair game, irrespective of whether or not its intentions are good.
Again, I see alot of bare assertions without any evidence.
I agree that the military preserves our rights (or is supposed to...I dunno what the hell they're doing in Iraq that helps preserve my freedom), but they are only one entity of many who do so.
What "Establishments" are being attacked by the ACLU?
Could you please give some examples and evidence?
Pretty please?
Edited by Jaderis, : misspelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-07-2007 3:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 5:31 PM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 171 of 199 (384544)
02-12-2007 1:09 AM


Sorry for disappearing guys...I have been quite ill these last few days. It seems I have alot of catching up to do!
I will read through and respond as soon as I can.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Chiroptera, posted 02-12-2007 10:07 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 173 of 199 (384703)
02-12-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 12:24 PM


Re: The ACLU
They have certain beliefs, listed very prominently on its home page that lists all of its partisan beliefs. There is nothing wrong with partisanship in certain aspects of society, however, the law is not one of them. And contained within each subheading is clearly identified, pro-leftwing beliefs. Are you seriously going to deny that?
Ok...let's go through the first 5 alleged "partisan beliefs." I will quote the ACLU statement regarding its mission for each issue and the first two cases listed on the subject page.
Criminal Justice: "Our constitution is meant to stop government abuses of power. But all too often, the rights of those involved in the criminal justice system are compromised or ignored. The Racial Justice Program, Drug Law Reform Project, National Prison Project, Capital Punishment Project and other ACLU projects and affiliates work to reform the criminal justice system and make the promise of fair treatment a reality for all people."
- Supreme Court Strikes Michigan Law
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Michigan law denying legal representation to poor people in a criminal appeal is unconstitutional. The ACLU of Michigan filed the one of a kind case after the law was passed in 1999.
Under the law, an indigent criminal defendant who wished to challenge his sentence after pleading guilty was generally not entitled to appointed counsel, even for a first appeal. Michigan was the only state in the country that denied appointed counsel under these circumstances."
-Ensuring Young People's Access to Counsel in Ohio "The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, ACLU National, The Children’s Law Center and the Ohio Public Defender’s Office filed a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court on March 9 calling for the court to protect children’s right to counsel when they are accused of a crime."
So one of the ACLU's "partisan" missions is to ensure a fair and constitutional criminal justice system. I see.
Death Penalty: "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties. In the past 30 years, 123 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row. Learn more about the Capital Punishment Project and how you can get involved."
-ACLU Amicus Brief, Lawrence v. Florida "On October 31, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Lawrence v. Florida. The case addresses questions surrounding the deadline that death-row and other inmates must meet in filing an application for a federal writ of habeas corpus. One question before the Court is whether inmates whose state-selected lawyers inexcusably miss the deadline should receive a short extension so that they are not executed without a federal judge ever reviewing their case. The ACLU CPP's amicus brief demonstrates the abysmal quality of representation received by many death-row inmates in Florida."*
-ACLU Challenges the Conviction and Death Sentence of a Mentally-Ill Man Read more about the death penalty and mental illness
*
Granted, the death penalty is a contentious issue for many, but I hardly think that the views fall along party lines since both the Democrats and the Republicans support the death penalty. I would think instead views on the death penalty are quite personal and are influenced by religious or philosophical views, arguments regarding the application of the penalty, cruel and unusual punishment, etc, and views on prison's in general (are they supposed to be solely for punishment or should they be for rehabilitative purposes and can anyone be reformed?) along with countless other thoughts.
*I did not list the first two items on the page because they were stories about polls and physicians' roles in executions and not news about actual cases.
Disability Rights: "The evidence of the Americans with Disabilities Act is everywhere: Handicap parking spaces, Braille instructions on ATM's, and ramps built into sidewalks. The ACLU continues to fight for the civil rights of the disabled Americans. Learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans."
"Despite ample evidence that the ADA is working, people with disabilities are still, far too often, treated as second class citizens, shunned and segregated by physical barriers and social stereotypes. They are discriminated against in employment, schools, and housing, robbed of their personal autonomy, sometimes even hidden away and forgotten by the larger society. Many people with disabilities continue to be excluded from the American dream."
- ACLU Welcomes U.S. Department of Justices Support in Boca Raton Housing Discrimination Case (9/20/2006) "BOCA RATON, FL -- The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in federal court today intervening in the city of Boca Raton’s unconstitutional discrimination against persons with disabilities. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida’s Palm Beach Chapter, which filed suit on behalf of residents with disabilities in 2004, welcomed the DOJ’s support on this important civil liberties case."
- ACLU of Rhode Island and Community Groups Denounce Rules Denying Compensation to Certain Crime Victims (7/27/2006) "PROVIDENCE, RI -- Seven organizations that service people with substance abuse problems today sharply criticized as “discriminatory and mean-spirited” regulations approved earlier this week by General Treasurer Paul Tavares, allowing the state to deny compensation to victims of violent crimes based solely on their past drug-related criminal history."
While I'm not quite sure why a case involving discrimination against former drug abusers is listed on the "Disability Rights" page, I am also not quite sure why disability rights are a partisan issue. Perhaps you can explain.
Drug Policy: "The ACLU Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration."
- In Response to Court Ruling, ACLU of Washington Calls on Legislature to Clarify Medical Marijuana Law (11/22/2006) "OLYMPIA, WA - The Washington Supreme Court today rejected a seriously ill woman’s plea to use medical marijuana to alleviate chronic pain, even though she had a doctor’s written recommendation. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington said the 6-3 ruling points to the need to clarify the state’s medical marijuana law to ensure that patients are able to exercise their rights."
- California's Medical Marijuana Laws Get Nod from Court (11/16/2006) "SAN DIEGO - Medical marijuana patients around the country scored a major win today, as a California Superior Court judge issued a preliminary ruling that state medical marijuana laws can co-exist with the federal law that prohibits all use."
These first two cases involve medical marijuana, but the ACLU does not only take on these cases. Both Republican's and Democrat's argue for tougher enforcement (see "On the issues" link above), but the Democrat's do argue for more treatment and the Republican's argue for more jail time. The ACLU's involves itself in cases involving racial disparity in sentencing (harsher sentences for crack as opposed to powder cocaine, for example), privacy issues (mandatory drug testing for students, welfare recipients, etc), religious freedom (use of drugs in religious ceremonies and also certain government subsidized "faith based" programs that compel the enrollee to convert), policies that deny student's college aid due to past drug convictions and deny ex-felons the right to vote and deny past drug users access to certain jobs no matter how long ago the drug use was, asset forfeiture (you know when law enforcement can seize everything you own based on probable cause before a conviction and good friggin luck getting it back). You can find out more information on the main drug policy page which link is above.
Now how are any of these things partisan issues and not constitutional issues?
Free Speech: "Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans. Since 1920, the ACLU has worked to preserve our freedom of speech. Learn more and take action to protect the right to free speech."
- ACLU Returns to Court to Defend Right to Online Free Speech (10/23/2006) "PHILADELPHIA -- The American Civil Liberties Union today presented opening arguments in federal district court in its longstanding challenge to an Internet censorship law, ACLU v. Gonzales. The censorship law was signed by President Clinton in 1998 and has never been enforced.
'The right to free speech is one of the core values of this country," said ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen, who is lead counsel on the case. "Congress does not have the right to censor information on the Internet. Americans have the right to participate in the global conversation that happens online every moment of every day.' "
- Net Neutrality
- Artistic Freedom
- ACLU Lauds Senate Hearing on Science Saying, Fund Research Not Ideology (2/7/2007)
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the Senate Commerce Committee’s hearing today on oversight of government research on climate change, noting that recent government funded scientific studies have often put politics above facts.
The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
"Public policy must be based on accurate information, not on wishful thinking: The government has no business funding ideology in the guise of research. Congress is stepping up and doing the oversight needed to assure Americans that their research dollars are going to real research - not spin."
- ACLU Challenges Baltimore County Sign Ordinance That Unconstitutionally Restricts Political Speech (2/2/2007) BALTIMORE - Alarmed that Baltimore County has elected - for the second time in a decade - to waste taxpayer resources trying to restrict the free speech rights of it own residents, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland today filed suit seeking to overturn a new county law that unconstitutionally limits when individuals can place political signs on their private property.
Please find me something regarding freedom of speech that is a partisan issue.
Now I know you are going to bring up the fact that abortion and gay rights were not included ( I picked the top 5 so as not to seem biased in my selections) and are indeed partisan issues, but I will argue that the ACLU, even with regards to these very contentious issues still concentrates on the constitutional aspects surrounding them. And they keep winning because the courts find that the constitutionality of their arguments is solid.
I, however, do not want to delve into the right and wrong of these two issues here because that is one surefire way to unravel this thread. There are other threads where these are constantly being hashed out.
Um, because they are supposed to be lawyers, not political activists, for which they actually are. You don't see a problem with the scorecard because you agree with their agenda. Lets leave our own partisan beliefs out of the matter momentarily. Do you think it is appropriate for a group of lawyers in their professional capacity to be scoring Representatives and Congressmen on their stance about certain things? Don't you think that gives the impression of partisan politicking?
Yes, I agree with their "agenda" of guaranteeing all citizens the rights enshrined in the constitution. Scoring lawmakers on their votes regarding constitutional issues makes perfect sense for such an organization. It also serves to let us know which bills are being introduced that would threaten (or strengthen) our rights and seeing which lawmakers are voting for or against these issues helps us make an educated decision at the polls as to whether or not we want lawmakers who support stripping us of our rights sitting in Congress.
Besides, I've already stated that the scorecard scores reps not on general issues, but their votes on specific bills that would erode (or strengthen) our rights. You snidely denied that this would be the purpose of the scorecard, but the evidence speaks for itself.
I do not think that an organization devoted to preserving and guarateeing our civil rights and liberties is acting inappropriately in informing the voters of how individual lawmakers are acting with regards to these issues.
Its lost on you that the nomination of Justice Roberts and Alito was met with virulent hostility despite impeccable judicial records?
Several people have covered this remark, but I would just like to reiterate their points that there is no evidence of "virulent hostility" in your links, just reasoned argument and evidence of their prior judicial opinions running counter to preserving civil liberties.
Sure thing.
Gitlow v. New York, Whitney v California, Brandenburg v. Ohio, were all cases where the ACLU defended clients over sedition. All cases went to the Supreme Court and trial was a victory for the ACLU. In Speiser v. Randall, ACLU attorney Lawrence Speiser, acted on his own behalf that challenged a California law that required veterans to sign an affidavit stipulating that in order to receive a tax exemption, one must sign an oath of allegiance. (Oh, but I thought communists were purged from the... oh never mind. I guess I was right).
They also defended the famed Sacco and Vanzetti trial-- also about sedition against the United States.
Hmmm...I seem to recall asking you to provide evidence that the ACLU defends terrorists and "aids and abets" them.
Sedition is not terrorism.
From Answers.com:
se·di·tion (s-dsh'n)
n.
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.
Sounds familiar...
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ” That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Our country was founded on sedition.
Accusation of sedition is also not sedition.
You still need to provide evidence for your claim that the ACLU defends terrorists (which by itself means nothing as everyone is entitled to a defense and not even terrorists should be denied basic human rights...two wrongs do not make a right and all...you would still need to explain how that is un-American and justifis your claims about the ACLU) AND "aids and abets" them.
You have done neither.
ACLU v DoD
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
You have yet to explain to any of us what you mean by "extreme patronage." Until you do so I cannot address these examples.
Curley v NAMbLA
They defended them against claims that they were responsible for the death of a boy based on the killers having had some of their pamphlets in their possession (none of which advocated murder, BTW). They were defending NAMBLA's right to free speech (one of their specialties), not the organization itself. You still seem to fail to see the difference and I'm not sure how anyone can make it clearer for you. They didn't choose to take the case because it involved NAMBLA and they would like nothing better than to see little boys raped, but because it involved freedom of speech.
Their undying support for abortion apparently abrogates the right for parents to know when a serious surgical procedure can be done. Interestingly enough, abortion is the ONLY medical procedure that now does not need parental consent. As far as the ACLU's stance on partial birth abortion, they released this statement.
Actually, having a baby does not require parental permission, either.
Crash already addressed one of the reasons why it should not require parental permission (do victims of child abuse have to get their parents permission to treat their broken bones?) I would like to add that parental consent for abortion smacks of the way abortion used to be treated in this country which was declared unconstitutional. Very desperate girls who feel, for whatever reason, that they cannot tell their parents or know that they would deny consent WILL find a way to have an abortion and that often entails dangerous methods OR they will hide their condition and have their baby in a bathroom and many will abandon or kill it.
As for "partial birth abortion", your link does not say much about how the ACLU feels about it. It does say that the ACLU fought that particular law because "it bans safe and common abortion methods used in the second trimester of pregnancy, well before fetal viability. It also lacks an exception to protect women's health -- a requirement that is constitutionally compelled, as the Supreme Court made clear in its recent ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)."
Again, they are debating the constitutionality of these laws. If you have an issue with this then take it to court and prove that the laws are constitutional or that prior court decisions are wrong. However, your conscience is not evidence in our court system.
Please, everyone, if you want to debate the ACLU's stance on reproductive rights, you may do so here, but I do not want this thread to be a platform for either side of the abortion debate.
The ACLU's attack on anything Christian in nature is easily identifiable when considering the cases they take on, juxtaposed by what they don't. Have a look at McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, ACLU v Schundler, ElkGrove School District v Newdow, City of San Diego and Mt. Soledad Memorial Association v Paulson, Allegheny County v ACLU of Pittsburgh
What do you mean "juxtaposed by what they don't?" What cases DON'T they take on?
As for your examples, none of them involve "attacking Christianity." All of them (except the Newdow case) involve a religious group or religious people within government trying to establish their religion over others on public spaces.
If you want to put up a creche during Christmas, do so on your OWN property or on the private property of someone who supports you OR allow other religions and non-religions to put their own displays alongside yours.
If you want people to associate the 10 Commandments with Western Law then open a friggin museum dedicated to Judeo-Christian morals and the law or some such.
These cases are NOT an attack on Christianity and pretending at martyrdom is not going to make it otherwise.
The Boyscouts of America were taken on by the ACLU in the case of Boy Scouts of America v Dale because apparently Dale thought that hanging out with little boys as a homosexual was a great idea. It makes as much sense as a grown heterosexual man taking girl scouts on an overnight outing. I wonder how many parents would feel comfortable with that.
Funny how they failed to mention that. They only mentioned that homosexuality was incompatible with their beliefs as scouts. Not a damn thing about overnight camping trips.
It's also funny how most sexual crimes against boys are committed by men who are otherwise heterosexual (if they indeed have any attraction to adults at all as many child molesters are strictly fixated on children)
What's really funny is that the BSA claims to be a private organization but they have no problem taking public funds nor with having a Congressional charter
To answer your question,though, I would feel fine with a heterosexual man taking my daughters on an overnight trip, especially if another adult was with him (male or female) which, incidentally, is scout policy. At least two adults accompany the kids on their overnight excursions.
Raping and beating wives with impunity used to be the status quo? Evidence, please, that this used to be the norm. Please don't make bare assertions.
My apologies.
Details about the Violence Against Women Act
Wiki on Spousal Rape
quote:
Many United States rape statutes used to preclude prosecution of a man for sexually assaulting his own wife, including if the couple are estranged or even legally separated. In 1975, South Dakota removed this exception. By 1993, this was the case throughout the United States.[2] However, 33 of 50 U.S. states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [Bergen, 1999]. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery or spousal abuse.
FOX News story on marital rape
Synopsis of the Tracey Thurman case - the first woman to win a civil suit against law enforcement for not coming to her aid after repeatedly reporting abuse by her estranged husband and his violations of restraining orders (culminating in him stabbing and kicking her repeatedly, so that now she is permenantly disabled and disfigured), effectively denying her "equal protection under the law" by treating her differently than anyone else reporting a crime simply because she was married to her abuser.
So, like I said...the "status quo" isn't always what it is cracked up to be and often needs major overhaul.
Because they got to come to the aid of a few basketball players who went to a religious school, but got to come down on the school and its philosophies itself.
I'm letting this one go for now in the hopes that you finally realize that the ACLU was defending the school.
What I think is for how much the ACLU takes on cases that supposedly infringe on others rights, here they are sticking their nose in the business of a private school trying to subvert its rights to follow the Sabbath. The easy fix is don't go to that school if you don't like the policies of the school, all of which was known well beforehand. Their religious freedoms are being subverted in a rather underhanded way. Now, would it be cool if the school laxed up a bit? Sure it would. But they don't have to. And they certainly have no legal obligation to do so.
Again, I'm going to let this go since it has been shown to you that the ACLU was not trying to "subvert" anyone's rights, much less the SDA school it is defending.
I'm not sure why you posted this because its in the favor of the school.
Because, I, unlike you, recognize rights violations regardless of whose rights are in question. And because, I, unlike you, can actually read through a link to find out what the information is instead of making a snap judgement based on what I think about a particualr organization.
It proves their bias. I just presented at least 5 cases where they attack Judeo-Christian beliefs and spin it so that it infringes the Establishment Clause separation of church and state.
Please explain how any of the cases you presented constitute an "attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs" and while you're at it explain to me which particular Judeo-Christian beliefs you perceive to be under attack in these cases.
Edited by Jaderis, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 174 of 199 (384708)
02-12-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 2:13 PM


Re: The ACLU
Again, they specifically look for these kinds of cases with a particular ardor that could only reasonably mean one thing-- they like the romanticism of the underdog.
OR, to a reasonable person, it means that they specifically take on cases involving constitutional law and civil liberties, which often, unfortunately, involve an "underdog" fighting against the government or another rather large entity who are violating said rights and also sometimes involve organizations or individuals that most people find to be "heinous" but whose rights still need to be protected all the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 2:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 175 of 199 (384710)
02-12-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
02-08-2007 3:06 PM


Re: What is wrong with Communism?
Jesus certainly believed in joint ownership of the resources. Admittedly he did subscribe to the manifesto as laid out in Animal Farm that while all critters are equal, some are more equal than others.
Whether or not Jesus was a Communist is definitely not on topic, Jar. You know better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 02-08-2007 3:06 PM jar has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 176 of 199 (384727)
02-12-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 5:31 PM


Re: The ACLU
Radical Islam and the Radical Left are all in bed with one another, as evidenced by who defends who, and who attacks what. The whose-who of the legal Left includes the ACLU, the NLG, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
I read this post last night and I am still laughing at your "proof" that "Radical Islam and the Radical Left are all in bed with one another" by posting a chart with a bunch of lines.
Seriously, tho...do you have any actual evidence that the ACLU "aids and abets terrorists?"
You must have missed the part where the ACLU are defending Jaynes and Sicari.
No, really, you must have missed the part where they were actually defending NAMBLA's right to free speech and did not, in fact, defend Jaynes and Sicari.
Why then is a handbook on how to have sex with children and get away with considered protected literature under the First Amendment, but the Anarchists Cookbook is not? Why is this handbook that teaches men how to abduct children legally protected, but a pamphlet about the social caveats that homosexuality can bring considered "hate speech?" Explain that unique position of the ACLU.
Please show some evidence that the Anarchists's Cookbook is illegal in the US. I bet you can't because it is in fact legal
Please also show how labeling something "hate speech" constitutes censorship and also that the ACLU advocates such a position.
You have a problem with those words? What about those words is egregious?
I never said they were "egregious." I was simply pointing out that those words are euphemisms and the hypocrisy of conservatives who complain about phrases like "reproductive freedom" yet use their own convoluted euphemisms.
LOL! The ACLU, which is supposed to be a not-for-profit organization receives money from the Federal government under this statute! I wonder if they'd hire a conservative lawyer with an immaculate judicial record.
Sure they would. Do you have any evidence that they have discriminated in their hiring practices? Otherwise, your "point" really has no meaning. Put up or shut up.
Secondly, it was the Clinton Administration that officially deemed the Boy Scouts of America to be a "religious institution" which means their religious beliefs are to be protected under the First Amendment.
Please explain to me how Clinton has anything to do with this.
Please provide evidence that anyone in the Clinton administration declared the BSA to be a religious organization or that they had any need to since the BSA describes itself as such , which I find interesting because they then try to deny that they are when it comes to their presence in public schools and conservative poster boy Bill O'Reilly even disputes that consider themselves a religious organization.
But that presents a real conundrum here. Because defending one automatically means the abrogation of rights for the other. Guess which one they chose to abrogate?
Explain please.
The Establishment-- the historical United States of America. They want their own version of the United States of America where leftist ideal can reign unchecked and unquestioned.
What leftist ideals would these be and how do they contradict the Constitution and the ideals of the USA?
I've given you numerous cases with links showing that they are unequivocally slanted to the left. Either you are ignorant of what you are looking at or intentionally being obtuse.
You've misrepresented every single case without fail so you have essentially shown me nothing but your own speculation that the ACLU wants to topple the US government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 5:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 177 of 199 (384731)
02-12-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 8:06 AM


Re: The ACLU
Jaderis asked me to show evidence that the ACLU personally and professionally sought to undermine the nomination of Justices Roberts and Alito.
No, I asked you to present evidence that the ACLU fought against judicial nominees that didn't "conform to their brand of politics."
You have yet to show that the ACLU didn't have legitimate complaints about their records on civil liberties and were simply playing partisan politics.
Read up about the "Wren Cross" and tell me what you think of the First Amendment in that situation
I think that the First Amendment is in great condition at that school.
The president of the publicschool decided that some students would be more comfortable if the cross was not present during assemblies (which were held in the chapel) and during days when the Christian students were not using the chapel to worship. The cross would be returned on Sundays, but otherwise would be put away in order that the other students of other faiths could use the chapel for whatever personal purposes without a Christian symbol glaring in their faces.
What problem, exactly, do you have with Mr. Nichol's decision? It seems mighty fair to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 8:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 178 of 199 (384732)
02-12-2007 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by subbie
02-09-2007 8:16 PM


Re: The ACLU
Let me ask you a question. Can someone burn a flag in a solemn ceremony for purposes of destroying a worn flag?
No need to respond, of course they can. In fact, that's the method recommended. Now, what's the difference between that and someone burning a flag to protest what the government has done? I'll answer that one for you as well. The message they are sending.
That's it.
Now, you explain why it's not speech.
Excellent subbie!!
I couldn't have put it better myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 8:16 PM subbie has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 179 of 199 (384740)
02-12-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM


Re: The ACLU
What? Please explain and substantiate how Alito and Roberts want the President to hold unitary powers above and beyond those specified in the Constitution that you liken to a Monarchy.
Wiki entry on the Unitary executive theory
FindLaw commentary on unitary executive theory
Justice Alito and the unitary executive theory
Subscribers to the "unitary executive theory" advocate an imbalance of powers and the granting of powers to the president that are go against the constitutional checks and balances.
Both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito advocate this theory.
You forget that a President can't even wipe his own ass without two thirds of Congress' approval.
And yet, our president decides time and time again to bypass the legislation passed by Congress by issuing signing statements declaring that he does not have to adhere to the legislation instead of clarifying his own understanding of the legislation as the pratice was intended to do.
Justice Alito is quite clear in his support for this and even proposed the strategy currently employed in the Oval Office.
And the President has veto powers. Its a checks and balances system so that no entity can become too powerful.
And yet, both of your examples of judges with "impeccable judicial records" advocate or have advocated a stronger executive branch with virtually unchecked powers.
That (among other things) is what the ACLU had issues with. Not their personal politics.
But just because someone is good at being an intelligent sycophant doesn't make it good, moral, or just.
And just whose ass are they kissing? You do know the definition of "sycophant" don't you?
Oh, I get it...you think that the judges in the cases they win cave into flattering debate techniques by the ACLU lawyers. Not that the ACLU actually presents a cogent argument with regards to constitutional law.
Gotcha.
What is wrong, in my estimation, is that they choose cases, intentionally, that pander to the criminal. They often come down on the side of criminals in an attempt to impugn those who don't deserve it.
Did you know that drinking out of the wrong water fountain used to be a crime? Sometimes there are unjust and unconstitutional laws on the books. The people who commit actions proscribed by these laws are criminals.
What the ACLU does is in these cases is point out the unconstitutionality of these laws. Once overturned, such a person is no longer a criminal nor had they ever really been a criminal because the law was unjust and should not have been on the books in the first place.
You can't elect to have a hysterectomy without a doctor to legitimize the need, no matter how old you are, which is actually apart of one's body, but you can elect to remove a body inside of your body at your own discretion.
No, a doctor diagnoses a need for a hysterectomy. If none exists or if a better alternative exists, then the doctor advises against the procedure. I'm not sure about the medical ethics regarding a situation where a woman elects to have a hysterectomy without need, but I doubt there are any laws regarding this.
Besides, no one has an abortion when no fetus is present (hence, no need).
Could you please substantiate?
I'm not even sure what statement the ACLU issued concerning this case.
They didn't. Wanna know why? Because they were not involved in the case.
That's twice now that you've brought up cases where the ACLU wasn't even involved in order to impugn them. Keep up the good work!!
As for the parts of your post I didn't respond to...I am not trying to quotemine. I am deferring to our other esteemed members' responses. I don't have much else to add beyond what they have covered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 12:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024