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 Childrenâ€™s Law Center and the Ohio Public Defenderâ€™s Office filed a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court on March 9 calling for the court to protect childrenâ€™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 Ratonâ€™s unconstitutional discrimination against persons with disabilities. The American Civil Liberties Union of Floridaâ€™s Palm Beach Chapter, which filed suit on behalf of residents with disabilities in 2004, welcomed the DOJâ€™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 â€œdiscriminatory and mean-spiritedâ€ 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 womanâ€™s plea to use medical marijuana to alleviate chronic pain, even though she had a doctorâ€™s written recommendation. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington said the 6-3 ruling points to the need to clarify the stateâ€™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 Committeeâ€™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.
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.
|seÂ·diÂ·tion (sÄ-dÄsh'É™n) |
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.
|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. â€” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â€” 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.
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.|
Details about the Violence Against Women Act
Wiki on Spousal Rape
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. 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 yet responded|