What's the beef with the ACLU?

I guess I don't understand the criticism. Republicans for several decades have embarked on a crusade to fundamentally undermine American civil liberties, particularly those of minority groups; therefore, naturally standing up for civil liberties is going to necessitate standing up to a lot of Republicans and their efforts to subvert the Judicial branch with Justices who take a counter-Constitutional view of liberty in America.How is that partisanship? Unfortunately for your side, terrorists have rights, too. Erosion of civil liberties doesn't start with regular citizens, it starts with those who regular citizens don't like. Hitler, after all, didn't go after Lutherans - he went after Jews, gypsies, and gays. Why do you think that is? Oh, I'm so very sure that the opponents (or "victims", as I suppose you style them) of the ACLU are all so very innocent and have no ulterior agendas whatsoever.Seriously, NJ. No, they don't. At no point has the ACLU defended a legitimate act of exploitation of children.The ACLU has defended those who have simulated child pornography using technical means or adult lookalikes; but again, while those activities may skeeve the hell out of you, they're constitutionally-protected expression and they don't harm children. Because that's what it is. On public property, to the exclusion of other religions? That is a crime. No, they don't. C'mon, NJ. Isn't it possible for the ACLU to oppose certain policies of the Boy Scouts without "hating" them? Don't be an idiot. Says you. Do you have any evidence for your accusations of bad faith? You're really making the point that criticism of the ACLU isn't based on any evidence but on an emotional reaction to the fact that they defend people who no one else will, but who have legitimate complaints against the government. And thank goodness they do. What the ACLU does preserves your freedom, NJ, even as they fight for your right to talk about what assholes you think they are. I hope someday you have the maturity to recognize that. Huh! You mean, a religious institution demanding special treatment from the government turned out to be against the first amendment? Imagine that!

Uh-huh. And it's your mind-reading powers that tell you this?I guess we're all waiting for you to present some evidence that the ACLU is so bad. But you seem content to do nothing but speculate bad-faith motives. Why is that?

Wait, are we talking about the ACLU, or Dinesh D'Souza?

George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft... need I go on? Robert Bork, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas... need I go on? Because that's a winning strategy.Get real, NJ. What's your evidence here? That they disagree with you? Please. How can it be anti-American to argue a case in court? This is nonsense, NJ. Surely you know better. This is false, which is why you can't prove it. But I'd like to see you try. No NAMBLA material contains descriptions or advocacy of violence against children, except insofar as the sexual acts they want to legitimize represent violence. But there were no NAMBLA materials like you describe. We've had this discussion. You always lose. Get over it. True.It's just too bad for your argument that's not what NAMBLA did, nor what the ACLU defended. Presents and Santa Claus? It kind of depends who you ask, doesn't it? And not everybody calls it "Christmas", by the way. Maybe you've heard of a religion called "Judaism", that celebrates a holiday right at about the same time?No? Not ringing any bells? Typical of a Christianist to forget that there are other religions, I guess. I am a Boy Scout, and I can tell you that's bullshit. The stuff the ACLU objects to is the same stuff I object to, and absolutely none of it is crucial to the scout experience. I never bashed gays when I was a scout, and it's bullshit to even suggest that's what makes the Scouts what they are.It's insulting, quite frankly; and it just goes to show that there's absolutely no organization that a Christianist won't shit all over just to make a point. You're really disgusting sometimes, do you know that? It's both. The military doesn't defend us against the government. That's what the courts are for, but the courts don't do it by themselves. Who was in charge of scheduling the championship, NJ?And why is it that you can't present the least evidence for any of your assertions? Is it because they're all falsehoods?

Fair enough. I guess my point is that, among conservatives, the ACLU is regularly trashed for things that didn't actually happen. The ACLU does an important job, but it's one that obstructs a large portion of what conservatives would like to do to America. As a result, the ACLU is slandered with the basest of imprecations based on assertions that are completely counter-factual.And then they're repeated by people like NJ, who present them as truth. I'm sure NJ has no idea as to the truth of the things he's repeating, and I don't mean to call him a liar. But it is true that NAMBLA materials aren't about how to murder children; to assert that is ludicrous. To print that would be criminal. The ACLU defended them because that's exactly what they didn't print.

I'll try to be less short.

I'm sorry; which part of those materials are you characterizing as "virulent hostility"? In fact they appear to me to be very reasonable rebuttals to your assertion that these figures have "impeccable judicial records."Are they hostile to you simply because you believe that Alito and Roberts were qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? From what expertise did you make that determination? Or did you simply support the nominations of those two men because George Bush picked them?Who's being partisan, exactly? So then they didn't actually commit "sedition", now did they? Perhaps you're not aware that the current historical consensus is that those two men were in fact innocent of what they were executed for? I mean had you read your own link you would have seen that another man confessed to the crimes they were convicted of.I'm not exactly sure how you think it impeaches the ACLU that they regularly defend people being railroaded for crimes they didn't commit, or how exactly it's "anti-American" to obstruct the government from malicious, fraudulent prosecution. Can you explain your thoughts further in this matter? An indictment, as you know, is not a conviction. As they saying goes, "you can indict a ham sandwich." Again can you explain how defending innocent people constitutes "anti-American" activities?Or is it your position that the government has a right to convict people of crimes they didn't commit? Not true; emergency care doesn't require anybody's consent. And, of course, abortion is arguably the only medical procedure where one would have to get permission from their rapist.But, hey. If you think forcing a 14-year-old girl to confront her rapist to secure permission to terminate the result of that crime is something the state has a legitimate interest in promoting, perhaps you could advance that argument in another thread. But my guess right now is that you simply haven't thought through this at all. What's common knowledge is that conservative pundits regularly attack the ACLU on fraudulent premises (even after they've been personally defended by that organization.) You appear to simply be repeating many of these false premises, which begs the question of who exactly is ignorant of "common knowledge" in this instance. You have to have it spelled out? The private school is infringing on all the other schools who would have to reschedule the championship simply because the players from that school demanded special consideration for their religions faith. That's fine. They don't have the right to demand others make concessions to their beliefs. There's no "spin" involved. Just your topsy-turvey worldview that asserts the primacy of Christianity to demand special concessions to its dogma, contrary to the clear phrasing of the First Amendment.

Is there a link to the case? I confess that now I'm completely confused.

You mean, their objection is that they pick and choose?All legal aid organizations do this. For instance, the Electronic Freedom Foundation defends cases that involve copyright law, DMCA actions, and other instances that are electronic/Internet-centric, or are related to so-called "intellectual property."The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund defends cases that involve comic books and free speech issues. I notice that you have no criticism for the Home School Legal Defense Association, which defends cases and authors amicus briefs on behalf of those it believes have had their right to instruct their own children infringed upon. And I'm sure you'll raise no objection to the Christian Law Association, who rises in defense of, and only of, people who have been discriminated against on the basis of their Christian religion. (Other religions need not apply, apparently.)If your objection is that legal aid organizations exist that focus on specific kinds of cases, then I don't know what to tell you. Is it your assertion that the resources of the ACLU are infinite, and that they just pick and choose at whim? Isn't it obvious that they choose the cases that they feel best represent violations of civil rights?What exactly is wrong with that? If the very idea of specialized legal aid associations is so disturbing to you, then perhaps you might work to improve the state of public-financed defenders, so that such legal aid is no longer necessary. Otherwise you're just applying another double-standard to baselessly attack the ACLU.

Wait, I don't get it.How does this show the ACLU discriminates against Christians, again?

That these men have been instrumental in programs that undermine American freedom? It's "common knowledge" (as I believe you put it.) Open a newspaper sometime - or don't you think that warantless electronic surveillance of Americans guilty of no crimes constitutes an erosion of our civil liberties? No, you've presented evidence that they defend a certain type of case.That's not bias; that's specialization. They are the "American Civil Liberties Union", after all. Not the "American Argue Every Single Case Union." I don't see what the NLG, or more specifically, one of it's members, has to do with the ACLU. Right. Where in it does it say how to murder a child? LOL! Your declarations of victory don't change the fact that you and your side always lose. With what? Innuendo? I don't see where you've posted a link to how to kidnap and murder children. Who said that it did, NJ? Learn to read closer, maybe? The point is, if public funds and support are provided to Christian creches, but not to other religious symbology involved in the other myriad holidays that occur at the same time, that's a special privilege for Christianity.Which is contrary to the First Amendment. Indeed it doesn't. Which makes it too bad when they do it anyway. And it means that, regrettably, an organization I support is justifiably opposed by the ACLU, another organization I support. (It's like when your two best friends break up with each other.) To the extent that the Scouts benefit from public funds and facilities, they aren't a private organization; they have to follow the rules same as everybody else. And not being discriminatory is a part of that. Look, that's the rule. Change Federal laws if you don't like it. I think, at this point, it's pretty clear that you've completely misrepresented this situation and what side the ACLU was defending. I already asked this, but I'll pose it to you directly - how does it prove an anti-Christian agenda for the ACLU to be defending the right of the school to have the championship rescheduled? Links to cases that prove you wrong! Links to situations you completely misrepresented, like the case of the Adventist basketball players. What on Earth does any of that prove, except that you're completely ignorant as to the actual history of the ACLU?

And your proof of this is, what, exactly? Drawing lines between their names? Boy, color me convinced.

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

LOL! Truly, Sub, you're doing a much better job in a lot fewer words than I could.

Do I really come off as that big an asshole?