What's the beef with the ACLU?

Hey Jaderis,Its a great thread and I will definitely get into it when I have more time. But for now I've got to get to work. Cheers.

---

"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

Yes, I have been to their website on a number of occasions. You may be a little perplexed as to why so many people have an aversion towards the ACLU when they seem so gosh darn nice and impartial. Well, truth be told, you have to do a little digging in the ACLU past all of the fluff. But you don't have to dig very far for the truth.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 BaldwinThe 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. 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. Interestingly enough they have tried to stymie every Supreme Court Justice who didn't conform to their brand of politics. But wait.... I thought they are non-partisan? I must have forgotten that oft-repeated mantra. Its just so hard to think of them as being impartial when their record is so obviously to advance an agenda. They regularly take on cases that not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide and abet them. They take on cases that support extreme patronage where an offender has been clearly indicted for a crime. 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. They defend child pornographers and institutions who support crimes against children. 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.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. And its working beautifully for them. Their tactic is actually working.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. But their defense of such cases is usually geared towards some individualistic right they have manifested in their minds. 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.

---

"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

No he didn't. The closest he ever came to that was realizing that his hero's turned out be vicious murderers which went against his pacifistic views. He simply went underground with his beliefs to avoid detection from McCarthy's own social cleansing.Even in the event he tried "purge" communism from the ACLU, (which is consequently against people's civil rights), he failed to meet the objective as evidenced by the totality of communistic views that survive and thrive within the Union today.

---

"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

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, every one is entitled to a defense where an attorney will be appointed to the defendant. No complaints there whatsoever. Here's the problem with the ACLU. They specifically take on these cases without even knowing the facts of the case, which makes their unwaivering support suspect. And the ACLU is not alone in this. The National Lawyers Guild is among some of the other groups that purposely take on cases that are, in essence, anti-American.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. No, I'm sure there are a few extreme rightwinger's who don't like the ACLU either. 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. Let me give you an actual case and then you determine.Robert Curley has filed a suit against NAMbLA that the ACLU came rushing in to defend. Two men, named Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari kidnapped 10 year old Jeffrey Curley, the plaintiffs son. Curley resisted the men who tried to rape him so they shoved a rag with gasoline down his throat and then strangled the boy to death. Once dead they sodomized his corpse. When they were finished having their "fun." they placed his body in a container and poured cement in it to weigh it down. Once dried, they heaved the (I believe it was a cooler) into a river.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.

quote:

---

They have an unwaivering support of all forms of abortion, even partial birth abortion, and have the gall to now call it "reproductive freedom."

---

No, it isn't. That's calling one thing something else to water it down.

quote:

---

They take on religious groups that want to display Nativity scenes, as if displaying baby Jesus is the crime of all crimes.

---

What's criminal is making pamphlets on how to kidnap and rape little boys, but that doesn't seem to stop them from defending it on purpose. Lets examine the word Christmas: "A mass for Christ." Who is Christ? Jesus. What is the purpose of Christmas, really? Honoring the birth of the Christ. So, you either have to do away with the entire holiday, or let people put up a Nativity scene.Your priorities, along with the ACLU, is so warped that it boggles my mind.

quote:

---

They hate the boyscouts of America for crying out loud.

---

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. 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. It was a private school, Crash. I presume you know the difference between private and public. The government has literally nothing to do with the case.

---

"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

Which would make what I said incorrect in what way??? Are you saying that because they are a special interest group that they should acknowledge their partisan beliefs? If so, I would agree.

---

"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

Baldwin wasn't against Communism, he was against their stance on free speech. He supported communism tooth and nail. The only thing he contends with was that the gulags and maltreatment by certain Bolshevik philosophy was that he agreed with the First Amendment. See, he knew there was something very antithetical about being a communist on one hand, and then also being all for free speech. That's an oxymoron and he knew it. Instead, he tried to get communists to adopt his view on things. He didn't denounce communism, he denounced some of their practices. He only outwardly spoke out against it because the Red Scare was already happening. The FBI was already chronicling his life. If you think the Red Scare began and ended with McCarthy you'd be dead wrong. What we call "McCarythism" is just a name we give to those who perpetrated the Red Scare. Aside from which, Baldwin even admitted that the best way to present communism in America was his use of free speech, equivocating it with the "class struggle" that typifies communist ideals. In other words, his use of free speech was a tool for reaching a broader audience in America. And my gosh, it looks like it worked. He didn't abandon communism over the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Rather, he was sickened that the Soviets, who were communists, were collaborating with their arch rivals, fascist Germany. That doesn't mean he disliked communism. That means he viewed the upper echelon to be sell outs to the cause.

---

"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

I agree that its not always necessarily the case. 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? I'm not saying that partisanship is necessarily a bad thing. What I am showing is that partisan beliefs pervade the ACLU's mentality as a whole, which accounts for why they "choose" to take on certain cases. In other words, its not because of the spirit of law why they take these case. This is a political and ideological platform for them. Rrrrrrrrrright..... That must be it. 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?

quote:

---

Interestingly enough they have tried to stymie every Supreme Court Justice who didn't conform to their brand of politics.

---

Its lost on you that the nomination of Justice Roberts and Alito was met with virulent hostility despite impeccable judicial records? Invectives for AlitoInvectives for Roberts

quote:

---

They regularly take on cases that not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide and abet them.

---

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.

quote:

---

They take on cases that support extreme patronage where an offender has been clearly indicted for a crime.

---

. ACLU v DoDCity of Indianapolis v. Edmond

quote:

---

They defend child pornographers and institutions who support crimes against children.

---

Curley v NAMbLA

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

​

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

​

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.

​

I have provided links to support my contentions. Please refrain from making bare assertions.

​

Most of these cases are well known, except, I guess, for members of EvC. I wasn't aware that I was making a "bare assertion" since this is all common knowledge.

​

Racial segregation was once the status quo and all the horrors that came along with it.

​

This is true, however, it went against the very Constitution that stated all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Racial segregation should never have even existed once the Drafters placed those words in the Constitution. It should have been no contest.

​

Being able to rape and/or beat your wife with impunity was once the status quo.

​

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.

​

quote:

---

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?

​

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.

​

Would you disagree if the tournament was scheduled on Easter Sunday?

​

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.

​

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.

---

​

quote:

---

(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.

---

​

quote:

---

(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.

---

​

I'm not sure why you posted this because its in the favor of the school. No child was "discriminated" against, however, the school's religious freedoms were undermined. The parents of the students placed their children in that school, and knew the schools policies beforehand. So who is infringing on who here?

​

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??)

​

For some people, observing the Sabbath is a commandment from God, which means, there is no compromising. And they have every right in the world to believe that and to observe that. The state, or any entity, such as the ACLU, has no right to infringe on their religious freedoms.

​

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?"

​

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.

​

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed links

​

---

"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

Yes Chiro. Every man, woman, and child, irrespective of the alleged crime, is entitled to a defense. I firmly believe that with every fiber of my being. However, the ACLU specifically chooses to take on cases that are particularly heinous in nature. If they are just willing to defend any one that needs legal representation, then I would have no problem with it on the basis that it was done so arbitrarily. Oh, but not so with 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. They don't seem to really give a whit about the actual case. They seem to be grossly invested in whatever may paint the victim as the victimizers and to paint the victimizers as the victims.The fact that they pick and choose which cases they want to represent coupled with the heinous nature of the crimes they take, can only mean one thing. You make the deduction. The specious claim every one is now making that, "everyone is entitled to a defense" is rendered completely ineffectual when its not done arbitrarily. Its evident that they have special interests in mind.

---

"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

No thanks, I already have an attorney.

---

"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

Explain, please.

---

"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

quote:

---

Name some Republicans that want subvert the Judicial branch with Justices who take a counter-Constitutional view of liberty in America.

---

Evidence, please.

quote:

---

Or even better, name me the Justices that run counter to the Constitution.

---

Evidence, please. I've thus far produced a mound of cases supporting my assertion that they are definitely slanted towards an ideological view. Seriously, why is any one denying that much? Its not a crime to be biased. They are certainly afforded the right to their slanted views so long as it matches up with the law, but please at least acknowledge the obvious.

quote:

---

The National Lawyers Guild is among some of the other groups that purposely take on cases that are, in essence, anti-American.

---

Its anti-American to twist my words. Unless you think its perfectly acceptable for members of the National Lawyers Guild to aid and abet known terrorists toward the destruction of the United States and its allies, would it not be considered anti-American. The publication is called: "The Survival Manual: A Man's Guide to Staying Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationship"
Page not found | National Review
Sexualhttp://www.s-t.com/daily/04-01/04-12-01/a03sr027.htmHere is the ACLU attorney defending the alleged murderers, and even he says that NAMbLA has such a publication in their possession."Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms." -John Reinstein; legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts You stubbornly maintaining your convoluted views next insurmountable evidence to the contrary does not constitute winning for you. Just thought you should know that.

quote:

---

What's criminal is making pamphlets on how to kidnap and rape little boys, but that doesn't seem to stop them from defending it on purpose.

---

Then you would have to stop arguing about this case since you now agree. You now agree that the ACLU defends known criminals, not alleged, but known. I guess you were wrong now that I've substantiated the claim.

quote:

---

What is the purpose of Christmas, really?

---

LOL! Sorry, but the Judaic holiday you are referring to lasts eight days and seven nights, and usually a whole four days before Christmas even begins. It literally has not one thing to do with Christmas. In fact, that holiday literally has nothing to do with Christmas. They just so happen to overlap. Here, please educate yourself. Other religions have "other" holidays that so happen to overlap. Christmas is Christmas, Hannukah is Hannukah, and Ramadan is Ramadan. And Kwanza, well, that was invented by Detroit native, Ron Karenga, in 1966. It literally has no recognition with any mainstream religion. The point is, all can be celebrated for their religious reasons. So you're the member of one chapter and all of a sudden you're the expert on the Boy Scouts of America? That's because "bashing gays" has nothing to with the scouts. Stop manipulating the case. The case is about concerned parents having a gay man taking little boys out on a retreat. Think about it for a minute. It makes about as much sense as having a heterosexual man taking little girls out in the middle of the woods. Does either case mean that either of the men are going to molest the kids? Certainly not! However, concerned parents and a "private" non-profit organization should be able to have their own beliefs on the best way to protect their kids. Its no business of the ACLU, this was just more of their grandstanding. Excuse me? This organization was around long before and established its rules long before it was invaded by interloping attorneys with an agenda. Who is shitting on who? That's a complete shocker for me... I can't believe that you don't like me. And to think, after all the sweet talking you've said to me over this past year.

quote:

---

It was a private school, Crash.

---

Even worse! They know and have to respect the religious freedoms of the school. See, you and the ACLU want freedom for all, so long as "all" is inclusive to their beliefs. Its a case of, "you can believe in whatever you want, so long as you agree with me." That's the ACLU in a nutshell. I've bombarded the forum with links. What more do you want me to do? You want me to fastrope in to ACLU headquarters and steal all their dossiers? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

"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

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.Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz You must have missed the part where the ACLU are defending 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. Every one has a right to voice their opinion. Even NAMbLA. What is doesn't have the right to do is produce instructional materials on how to capture little boys. Its the same thing as why the Anarchists Cookbook, which presumably has the same right to free speech as anyone else, was taken off of the shelves. NAMbLA has a right to say that they are sexually attracted to children. However, they cannot print publications detailing how to abduct children and get away with it. They are just as much indictable as the offenders are for publishing such tripe. Yes, those men are going to be accountable for they've done to that boy. But NAMbLA's author of the pamphlet is just as indictable. Seeriously, how can one view be called "hate speech" by one group, and something criminal and incredulously hateful be considered protected speech? How does that work? Might as well call it what it is. You have a problem with those words? What about those words is egregious? 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. 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. 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? The reason they went to Iraq was to topple the Saddam the dictator and to rebuild the country as a formidable democratic nation. The reason they are still there is because Iraq can't/refuses to stand up under its own power. If the US were to disengage before the fledgling government can concern itself with its own affairs without US aid, we'd might as well hand the keys to the city over to Muslim extremists. Right or wrong, that's why we're still there. 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. 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.

---

"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

Jaderis asked me to show evidence that the ACLU personally and professionally sought to undermine the nomination of Justices Roberts and Alito. I've now done that. Furthermore, Alito and Roberts were only bashed over their perceived beliefs. 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. Interesting. First of all, the hostility comes from the left in general. Did you not see the congressional hearing where Alito was scrutinized for three days straight? Apparently they were frightened that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia would singlehandedly overturn crucial cases like Roe v Wade or Casey v Planned Parenthood. So they harangued him on he would vote, hypothetically, without giving him any specifics. It was an absurdly pointless inquiry. I liked the nominations for the same reason you probably liked Sandra Day O'Conner. You feel, presumably, that she embodies the qualities that make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. Likewise, I was pleased with both Roberts and Alito as nominations because I feel that they will embody what the Supreme Court means in essence. Not according to the Justices presiding over the case. They had a fair trial, and I accept the decision made, however, that doesn't mean that they are innocent in the same way that just because the prosecution dropped the ball in the O.J. Simpson trial doesn't mean that O.J. is innocent. It means they were ruled, "not guilty." 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. I know the controversy surrounding the case, Crash. You realize that Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral on any given subject, though often times it is not. 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. I've explained it numerous times now. Look at the cases they take on. If it means they get to tear down a cross at a war memorial, they're all over it. If someone is charged with sedition, they don't need to know the specifics of the case beforehand in order to take on the case. The mere fact that its sedition against the United States is reason enough to defend them. 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? Why would a 14 year old need to confront her own rapist? If her its her own parent(s) raping the child, then that would be real easy to prove. But hey, we should strip the rights of all parents in the extreme unliklihood that that such a situation would come up, right? If parental consent for a medical procedure is needed in every other facet of life, why should this be different? What if the girl becomes irreparably harmed by the procedure? What kind of legal recourse can the parents take? Which avowed conservative was personally defended by the ACLU. This is all news to me. What? The private school has to deny all of its own rights and values in the event that some unforeseeable event in the distant future might interfere with the championship schedule? Get real. Now you are specifically talking about infringing on the right of the school to observe the Sabbath. Say it ain't so... Where's the ACLU? Oh, right, they're against the school. Another miscarriage of justice in the name of justice. That's right, they don't. No one asked them to make a special consideration for their religious beliefs. If the school demanded that the game be delayed in observance to "their" faith, I'd tell them to take a hike. That's not how it works. Read up about the "Wren Cross" and tell me what you think of the First Amendment in that situation.

---

"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

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

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

---

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