Full Version: ACLU Bashing
Why do so many people bash the ACLU here?
This is from the ACLU's mission statement:
Why do so many of our members have an automatic negative idea about anything the ACLU is involved in?
What exactly is wrong with the ACLU?
How would you improve the organization?
This is from the ACLU's mission statement:
QUOTE
Since our founding in 1920, the nonprofit, nonpartisan ACLU has grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of nearly 380,000 members and supporters, with offices in almost every state. The ACLU has also maintained, since its founding, the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. In support of that position, the ACLU has appeared before the Supreme Court and other federal courts on numerous occasions, both as direct counsel and by filing amicus briefs.
The ACLU's mission is to fight civil liberties violations wherever and whenever they occur. Most of our clients are ordinary people who have experienced an injustice and have decided to fight back. The ACLU is also active in our national and state capitals, fighting to ensure that the Bill of Rights will always be more than a "parchment barrier" against government oppression and the tyranny of the majority.
The ACLU's mission is to fight civil liberties violations wherever and whenever they occur. Most of our clients are ordinary people who have experienced an injustice and have decided to fight back. The ACLU is also active in our national and state capitals, fighting to ensure that the Bill of Rights will always be more than a "parchment barrier" against government oppression and the tyranny of the majority.
Why do so many of our members have an automatic negative idea about anything the ACLU is involved in?
What exactly is wrong with the ACLU?
How would you improve the organization?
It's quite simple, Quark. The ACLU, while it's stated purpose is noble, is often times inconsistant with it's stances for political reasons. I believe it became that way as a result of the political fallout it received when the ACLU defended the rights of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie, Ill. While the ACLU's defense of their freedom of assembly and speech was consistant with their charter, they lost quite a bit of support from their core people over it. Since that time, it has seemed to me that they are more interested in preserving the civil rights of liberal causes than of the population as a whole.
Such an example in my mind was during the Rodney King case where the four LAPD officers involved in the incident were acquitted by and large by a California State Court and then charged in Federal Court for effectively the same transactional crime. At the time, that seemed to me to be a gross violation of their rights under double jeopardy, yet the ACLU remained silent.
Such an example in my mind was during the Rodney King case where the four LAPD officers involved in the incident were acquitted by and large by a California State Court and then charged in Federal Court for effectively the same transactional crime. At the time, that seemed to me to be a gross violation of their rights under double jeopardy, yet the ACLU remained silent.
When is the last time the ACLU defended a conservative? Where is its defense of the 2nd amendment? That issue isn't even listed on their homepage.
Sure, their charter is admirable, but their current implementation is not...
How to improve it: let them actually (and impartially) stick to their charter.
Sure, their charter is admirable, but their current implementation is not...
How to improve it: let them actually (and impartially) stick to their charter.
The ACLU's strong opposition to the death penalty and strong support of abortion rights would anger many conservatives. The death penalty and abortion are both issues where the ACLU is not basing their defense on any strict interpretation of the constitution.
The ACLU's strong support of Affirmative Action and the American's with Disabilities Act shows that the ACLU rejects market solutions to social problems and wishes for government intervention. This angers many conservatives and libertarians alike. The ACLU does not protect the employer, or business owner's, freedom of association.
The ACLU's strong opposition to welfare reform is also a support of government. When an organization supports social and economic freedom it is libertarian, when it supports social freedom but government intervention in economic matters, it smell pretty liberal to me.
The ACLU seems to protect everyone except the employer, the business owner and the taxpayer. I just don't see a lot of the ACLU's agenda in the Bill of Rights.
Just so this won't seem like ACLU bashing, I agree with the ACLU 80% of the time. The tyranny of the majority does need to be attacked, when they support the ADA and AA they are not doing that.
The ACLU's strong support of Affirmative Action and the American's with Disabilities Act shows that the ACLU rejects market solutions to social problems and wishes for government intervention. This angers many conservatives and libertarians alike. The ACLU does not protect the employer, or business owner's, freedom of association.
The ACLU's strong opposition to welfare reform is also a support of government. When an organization supports social and economic freedom it is libertarian, when it supports social freedom but government intervention in economic matters, it smell pretty liberal to me.
The ACLU seems to protect everyone except the employer, the business owner and the taxpayer. I just don't see a lot of the ACLU's agenda in the Bill of Rights.
Just so this won't seem like ACLU bashing, I agree with the ACLU 80% of the time. The tyranny of the majority does need to be attacked, when they support the ADA and AA they are not doing that.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Aug 14 2003, 02:25 PM)
What exactly is wrong with the ACLU?
Without turning this into a terrible mudslinging, i would say that sometimes they defend the wrong people or things. NAMBLA is one of the examples of defending the wrong people
When and how did they defend NAMBLA? Was it thier right to publish or thier right to actually be pedophiles?
I think the ACLU don't represent employer, business and freedom what some would consider freedom of association because these are the organizations that have used these excuses in the past to discriminate against others, plus they are far more powerful than the other direction- employers, business and groups like the boy scouts are perfectly capable of defending themselves, they have way way way more resources than thier opponents.
I think that conservative groups whine because the ACLU is just about always right in these cases, and the conservatives whining about the ACLU are usually on the losing end. Remember, things like "freedom of association" are things that were used in country clubs to keep blacks out etc.
I think the ACLU don't represent employer, business and freedom what some would consider freedom of association because these are the organizations that have used these excuses in the past to discriminate against others, plus they are far more powerful than the other direction- employers, business and groups like the boy scouts are perfectly capable of defending themselves, they have way way way more resources than thier opponents.
I think that conservative groups whine because the ACLU is just about always right in these cases, and the conservatives whining about the ACLU are usually on the losing end. Remember, things like "freedom of association" are things that were used in country clubs to keep blacks out etc.
The problem with taking the ACLU seriously is that, like Amnesty International, the NAACP, and the BBC, they are an extremely partisan liberal activist group that operates under the guise of a well-meaning organization with a noble objective.
As the others, they claim to side with no particular party, but routinely stage rally's/protests, organize and give campaign contributions exclusively to/for the Democrats. (OK, that part doesn't include the BBC..that I know of)
They turn police shootings into bogus race wars, they help murderers avoid the death penalty, they resisted the legislation requiring sex offenders to register as such in their counties, they are spinning the Gray Davis recall as some kind of undemocratic travesty when no one is being deprived of their right to vote and around 80% of Californians consistently poll to want him out, they pressure judges and congressional officials to support racist preferences that discriminate against
Asians and whites, they manufacture outrage about the tragedy of airline inconveniences for terror suspects, and fight for the rights of illegal aliens to cross our borders with near impunity.
They are obscenely sleazy, and they stand in the way of peace and common sense. That is why people hate them.
As the others, they claim to side with no particular party, but routinely stage rally's/protests, organize and give campaign contributions exclusively to/for the Democrats. (OK, that part doesn't include the BBC..that I know of)
They turn police shootings into bogus race wars, they help murderers avoid the death penalty, they resisted the legislation requiring sex offenders to register as such in their counties, they are spinning the Gray Davis recall as some kind of undemocratic travesty when no one is being deprived of their right to vote and around 80% of Californians consistently poll to want him out, they pressure judges and congressional officials to support racist preferences that discriminate against
Asians and whites, they manufacture outrage about the tragedy of airline inconveniences for terror suspects, and fight for the rights of illegal aliens to cross our borders with near impunity.
They are obscenely sleazy, and they stand in the way of peace and common sense. That is why people hate them.
I've never heard of the ACLU or Amnesty International endorsing any candidate or giving campaign contributions, and I believe that the ACLU was against both Affirmative Action and Campaigne Finance Reform.
[quote=aquapub,Aug 14 2003, 10:29 PM]They turn police shootings into bogus race wars, they help murderers avoid the death penalty, they resisted the legislation requiring sex offenders to register as such in their counties, they are spinning the Gray Davis recall as some kind of undemocratic travesty when no one is being deprived of their right to vote and around 80% of Californians consistently poll to want him out, they pressure judges and congressional officials to support racist preferences that discriminate against
Asians and whites, they manufacture outrage about the tragedy of airline inconveniences for terror suspects, and fight for the rights of illegal aliens to cross our borders with near impunity.
They are obscenely sleazy, and they stand in the way of peace and common sense. That is why people hate them.[/quote]
Hey, how about a couple of sources, aquapub? Please reference your charges here.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. From where does your information about the ACLU come? Are you parroting some "sleazy" right wing talk show host? Where did you develop this opinion? From right wing news sources?
How, exactly, are they "obscenely sleazy?"
James Ziglar, former head of the INS in John Ashcroft's Justice Dept, and a self-proclaimed Barry Goldwater Republican, seems to find plenty of common ground with the ACLU:
[quote]I AM ESPECIALLY HONORED TO BE HERE BECAUSE, NOTWITHSTANDING MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ACLU ON SOME ISSUES SUCH AS PROPERTY RIGHTS AND GUN RIGHTS, I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU ON A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES, PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO THE FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
THE ACLU HAS SERVED AN IMPORTANT ROLE OVER MANY YEARS BY ALWAYS BEING THERE TO DEFEND CIVIL LIBERTIES, EVEN WHEN YOUR CLIENTS WERE DESPICABLE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN DESPICABLE CAUSES. AFTER ALL, IT IS THE EXPRESSION OF THAT MINORITY VIEWPOINT THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS—AND OUR COURT SYSTEM—WERE DESIGNED TO PROTECT. I HAVE NOTHING BUT ADMIRATION FOR YOUR UNWAVERING DEVOTION TO PROTECTING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. I JUST WISH I COULD CONVINCE YOU TO SEE SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES MY WAY. BUT SINCE YOU ARE ONLY 83 YEARS OLD, I THINK THERE IS STILL HOPE.[/quote]
and:
[quote]YOU PROBABLY ARE WONDERING WHY SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A LIFELONG CONSERVATIVE WOULD APPEAR AT YOUR CONVENTION. AND I DO PROUDLY CONSIDER MYSELF A CONSERVATIVE IN THE BARRY GOLDWATER MOLD. BARRY GOLDWATER UNDERSTOOD THAT FREEDOM—IN HIS OWN WORDS— “DEPENDS ON EFFECTIVE RESTRAINTS AGAINST THE ACCUMULATION OF POWER IN A SINGLE AUTHORITY.”
BUT HIS MOST ELECTRIFYING AND INSPIRING WORDS WERE SPOKEN AT THE 1964 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION WHEN HE SAID:
“I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT EXTREMISM IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE! AND LET ME REMIND YOU ALSO THAT MODERATION IN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE IS NO VIRTUE!”[/quote]
Sorry, the source was all caps...
What's wrong with the brief filed in DEMORE v. KIM, before the USSC?
[quote]The question in this case is whether the government
can subject lawful permanent residents of the United
States to an indeterminate and often prolonged period of
mandatory detention without any individualized determi-nation
that such detention furthers the government’s
interest in protecting against danger and flight risk. As
construed by the government, 8 U.S.C. 1226© compels the
detention throughout the administrative removal process
of any immigrants, including longtime lawful permanent
residents, who are charged with being deportable based on
a wide range of criminal convictions. The statute applies to
immigrants like the respondent, who were convicted of
minor nonviolent offenses, who are raising bona fide
challenges to removal, and whom the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) itself concedes pose no
danger or risk of flight warranting detention.[/quote]
Here's some of what they have to say on Criminal justice, which I presume would include your (so thoughtfully put) helping "murderers avoid the death penalty:"
[quote]
The rights guaranteed to criminal suspects, defendants, offenders and prisoners were not included in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of criminals. They are fundamental political rights that protect all Americans from governmental abuse of power. These rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to reasonable bail, the right to due process of law and the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. This "bundle of rights" is indispensable to a free society.[/quote]
Those sleazy bastards.
On police practices:
[quote]In communities across the country, people have organized to bring about change. The most promising kinds of reform are based on the concept of civilian oversight of the police. In a democracy, the people must have control over those they empower to employ deadly force. Every citizen is entitled to effective, and humane, law enforcement.[/quote]
How unamerican!
As for the California recall election, how do you read all this into it: "they are spinning the Gray Davis recall as some kind of undemocratic travesty when no one is being deprived of their right to vote and around 80% of Californians consistently poll to want him out."
Hears what they say:
[quote]But if a recall election takes place in October 2003, as many as 8 million voters could be at the mercy of the defective “VotoMatic” or “Pollstar” machines which use “punch card” technology, the ACLU warned. At least six counties in the state (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, Solano, and Mendocino) are certain to use “punch card” voting machines if the recall election takes place as scheduled on October 7, 2003.
In the November 2000 presidential election, the error rate for the “punch card” machines was more than double that of any other system used in the state. “Votomatic” or “Pollstar” machines accounted for 74.8 percent of all ballots cast that did not register a vote for president in California.[/quote]
They don't mention anything about whether or not the vote should take place. They are hoping that the timetable for updating the defective voting machines can be moved up to accomodate the unexpected election. Where's the spin? Why would it be a big deal to do something they were going to have to do by next year anyway?
Pressure judges? They do bring suits to courts about constitutional issues. They do file amicus briefs. What sort of pressure are you referring to? Do you think that some toughs from the ACLU are threatening judges everywhere? As if you weren't putting a little "spin" on your own condemnation of affirmative action policies, aquapub!
As for these last two accusations:
[quote]they manufacture outrage about the tragedy of airline inconveniences for terror suspects, and fight for the rights of illegal aliens to cross our borders with near impunity. [/quote]
please help me out here. Get specific. I know it's hard. I know you love your little unsubstantiated rants, but do try, my friend.
Amlord:
[quote]Where is its defense of the 2nd amendment? That issue isn't even listed on their homepage.[/quote]
From their site:
[quote]The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 [/quote]
In the case of the Florida driver's license, what seems at first to be the ACLU sticking up for the wrong things turns out to not quite be the case:
[quote]In January 2002, shortly after Freeman's license was suspended, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on her behalf, citing three separate cases in Colorado, Indiana and Nebraska in which the courts ruled that individuals with certain clearly held religious beliefs have a right to obtain licenses without photographs. Those cases involved Christians who believe that the Second Commandment prohibits them from having their photographs taken. [/quote]
This issue is about equal protection under the law. It's about laws being fairly administered, not unevenly applied.
And Hugo, perhaps if you ever go blind, or are confined to a wheelchair, you will change your mind about the ADA:
[quote]The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990. The evidence of its success is everywhere. Handicap parking spaces, Braille instructions on ATM's, and ramps built into sidewalks have all become commonplace fixtures that make an enormous difference in the lives of persons with disabilities. [/quote] (from the ACLU site)
Asians and whites, they manufacture outrage about the tragedy of airline inconveniences for terror suspects, and fight for the rights of illegal aliens to cross our borders with near impunity.
They are obscenely sleazy, and they stand in the way of peace and common sense. That is why people hate them.[/quote]
Hey, how about a couple of sources, aquapub? Please reference your charges here.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. From where does your information about the ACLU come? Are you parroting some "sleazy" right wing talk show host? Where did you develop this opinion? From right wing news sources?
How, exactly, are they "obscenely sleazy?"
James Ziglar, former head of the INS in John Ashcroft's Justice Dept, and a self-proclaimed Barry Goldwater Republican, seems to find plenty of common ground with the ACLU:
[quote]I AM ESPECIALLY HONORED TO BE HERE BECAUSE, NOTWITHSTANDING MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ACLU ON SOME ISSUES SUCH AS PROPERTY RIGHTS AND GUN RIGHTS, I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU ON A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES, PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO THE FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
THE ACLU HAS SERVED AN IMPORTANT ROLE OVER MANY YEARS BY ALWAYS BEING THERE TO DEFEND CIVIL LIBERTIES, EVEN WHEN YOUR CLIENTS WERE DESPICABLE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN DESPICABLE CAUSES. AFTER ALL, IT IS THE EXPRESSION OF THAT MINORITY VIEWPOINT THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS—AND OUR COURT SYSTEM—WERE DESIGNED TO PROTECT. I HAVE NOTHING BUT ADMIRATION FOR YOUR UNWAVERING DEVOTION TO PROTECTING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. I JUST WISH I COULD CONVINCE YOU TO SEE SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES MY WAY. BUT SINCE YOU ARE ONLY 83 YEARS OLD, I THINK THERE IS STILL HOPE.[/quote]
and:
[quote]YOU PROBABLY ARE WONDERING WHY SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A LIFELONG CONSERVATIVE WOULD APPEAR AT YOUR CONVENTION. AND I DO PROUDLY CONSIDER MYSELF A CONSERVATIVE IN THE BARRY GOLDWATER MOLD. BARRY GOLDWATER UNDERSTOOD THAT FREEDOM—IN HIS OWN WORDS— “DEPENDS ON EFFECTIVE RESTRAINTS AGAINST THE ACCUMULATION OF POWER IN A SINGLE AUTHORITY.”
BUT HIS MOST ELECTRIFYING AND INSPIRING WORDS WERE SPOKEN AT THE 1964 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION WHEN HE SAID:
“I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT EXTREMISM IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE! AND LET ME REMIND YOU ALSO THAT MODERATION IN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE IS NO VIRTUE!”[/quote]
Sorry, the source was all caps...
What's wrong with the brief filed in DEMORE v. KIM, before the USSC?
[quote]The question in this case is whether the government
can subject lawful permanent residents of the United
States to an indeterminate and often prolonged period of
mandatory detention without any individualized determi-nation
that such detention furthers the government’s
interest in protecting against danger and flight risk. As
construed by the government, 8 U.S.C. 1226© compels the
detention throughout the administrative removal process
of any immigrants, including longtime lawful permanent
residents, who are charged with being deportable based on
a wide range of criminal convictions. The statute applies to
immigrants like the respondent, who were convicted of
minor nonviolent offenses, who are raising bona fide
challenges to removal, and whom the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) itself concedes pose no
danger or risk of flight warranting detention.[/quote]
Here's some of what they have to say on Criminal justice, which I presume would include your (so thoughtfully put) helping "murderers avoid the death penalty:"
[quote]
The rights guaranteed to criminal suspects, defendants, offenders and prisoners were not included in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of criminals. They are fundamental political rights that protect all Americans from governmental abuse of power. These rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to reasonable bail, the right to due process of law and the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. This "bundle of rights" is indispensable to a free society.[/quote]
Those sleazy bastards.
On police practices:
[quote]In communities across the country, people have organized to bring about change. The most promising kinds of reform are based on the concept of civilian oversight of the police. In a democracy, the people must have control over those they empower to employ deadly force. Every citizen is entitled to effective, and humane, law enforcement.[/quote]
How unamerican!
As for the California recall election, how do you read all this into it: "they are spinning the Gray Davis recall as some kind of undemocratic travesty when no one is being deprived of their right to vote and around 80% of Californians consistently poll to want him out."
Hears what they say:
[quote]But if a recall election takes place in October 2003, as many as 8 million voters could be at the mercy of the defective “VotoMatic” or “Pollstar” machines which use “punch card” technology, the ACLU warned. At least six counties in the state (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, Solano, and Mendocino) are certain to use “punch card” voting machines if the recall election takes place as scheduled on October 7, 2003.
In the November 2000 presidential election, the error rate for the “punch card” machines was more than double that of any other system used in the state. “Votomatic” or “Pollstar” machines accounted for 74.8 percent of all ballots cast that did not register a vote for president in California.[/quote]
They don't mention anything about whether or not the vote should take place. They are hoping that the timetable for updating the defective voting machines can be moved up to accomodate the unexpected election. Where's the spin? Why would it be a big deal to do something they were going to have to do by next year anyway?
Pressure judges? They do bring suits to courts about constitutional issues. They do file amicus briefs. What sort of pressure are you referring to? Do you think that some toughs from the ACLU are threatening judges everywhere? As if you weren't putting a little "spin" on your own condemnation of affirmative action policies, aquapub!
As for these last two accusations:
[quote]they manufacture outrage about the tragedy of airline inconveniences for terror suspects, and fight for the rights of illegal aliens to cross our borders with near impunity. [/quote]
please help me out here. Get specific. I know it's hard. I know you love your little unsubstantiated rants, but do try, my friend.
Amlord:
[quote]Where is its defense of the 2nd amendment? That issue isn't even listed on their homepage.[/quote]
From their site:
[quote]The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 [/quote]
In the case of the Florida driver's license, what seems at first to be the ACLU sticking up for the wrong things turns out to not quite be the case:
[quote]In January 2002, shortly after Freeman's license was suspended, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on her behalf, citing three separate cases in Colorado, Indiana and Nebraska in which the courts ruled that individuals with certain clearly held religious beliefs have a right to obtain licenses without photographs. Those cases involved Christians who believe that the Second Commandment prohibits them from having their photographs taken. [/quote]
This issue is about equal protection under the law. It's about laws being fairly administered, not unevenly applied.
And Hugo, perhaps if you ever go blind, or are confined to a wheelchair, you will change your mind about the ADA:
[quote]The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990. The evidence of its success is everywhere. Handicap parking spaces, Braille instructions on ATM's, and ramps built into sidewalks have all become commonplace fixtures that make an enormous difference in the lives of persons with disabilities. [/quote] (from the ACLU site)
They turn police shootings into bogus race wars,
[URL]ACLU: Cincinnati Police Have 'Harassed Blacks for 30 Years'[/URL]
[URL]KRT Wire | 04/03/2002 | Cincinnati to settle racial-profiling suit, start police reform[/URL]
they help murderers avoid the death penalty, [Please tell me you don't need proof that they actively oppose the death penalty]
they resisted the legislation requiring sex offenders to register as such in their counties,
[URL]ACLU Press Release: 08-28-97 -- Names Removed from MO Sex Offender List[/URL]
[URL]ACLU Press Release: 04-02-01 -- Connecticut’s Sex Offender Website Registry Violates Rights, Court Rules[/URL]
[URL]The ACLU opposes another bill about the sex offender list[/URL]
they are spinning the Gray Davis recall as some kind of undemocratic travesty when no one is being deprived of their right to vote and around 80% of Californians consistently poll to want him out,
[URL]Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Davis, ACLU Sue Over Calif. Recall Vote[/URL]
they pressure judges and congressional officials to support racist preferences that discriminate against Asians and whites,
[URL]ACLU Press Release: 02-05-98 -- ACLU Files Intervention in Michigan Affirmative Action Lawsuit[/URL]
they manufacture outrage about the tragedy of airline inconveniences for terror suspects,
[URL]ACLU Press Release: 10-01-01 -- House 'Compromise' Terrorism Bill Fails to Protect Civil Liberties; ACLU Says Many Provi[/URL]
and fight for the rights of illegal aliens to cross our borders with near impunity.
[URL]Immigration California Style: What a Joke![/URL]
I find it obnoxious that you insist on sources for these things that are in the headlines every day, but here they are.
And you can quote irrelevant, obscure opinions by other people all you want, but it won't make your points any more valid.
[URL]ACLU: Cincinnati Police Have 'Harassed Blacks for 30 Years'[/URL]
[URL]KRT Wire | 04/03/2002 | Cincinnati to settle racial-profiling suit, start police reform[/URL]
they help murderers avoid the death penalty, [Please tell me you don't need proof that they actively oppose the death penalty]
they resisted the legislation requiring sex offenders to register as such in their counties,
[URL]ACLU Press Release: 08-28-97 -- Names Removed from MO Sex Offender List[/URL]
[URL]ACLU Press Release: 04-02-01 -- Connecticut’s Sex Offender Website Registry Violates Rights, Court Rules[/URL]
[URL]The ACLU opposes another bill about the sex offender list[/URL]
they are spinning the Gray Davis recall as some kind of undemocratic travesty when no one is being deprived of their right to vote and around 80% of Californians consistently poll to want him out,
[URL]Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Davis, ACLU Sue Over Calif. Recall Vote[/URL]
they pressure judges and congressional officials to support racist preferences that discriminate against Asians and whites,
[URL]ACLU Press Release: 02-05-98 -- ACLU Files Intervention in Michigan Affirmative Action Lawsuit[/URL]
they manufacture outrage about the tragedy of airline inconveniences for terror suspects,
[URL]ACLU Press Release: 10-01-01 -- House 'Compromise' Terrorism Bill Fails to Protect Civil Liberties; ACLU Says Many Provi[/URL]
and fight for the rights of illegal aliens to cross our borders with near impunity.
[URL]Immigration California Style: What a Joke![/URL]
I find it obnoxious that you insist on sources for these things that are in the headlines every day, but here they are.
And you can quote irrelevant, obscure opinions by other people all you want, but it won't make your points any more valid.
Hmmm- sounds like the ACLU has done a good job of making goverment follow it's own rules and the constitution to me AQUAPUB
I tell you, if the cincinati police had to reform by court order, there was something very wrong with that police force. It is not easy to fight city hall, and espcially the executive branch of the force. If they were able to get the City of Cincinati police to change thier behavior through settlement, there absolutely had to be something going wrong there in my opinion, simply because the burden of proof is so everwhelmingly the job of ACLU to prove! Personally, if my city police department is so screwed up that the ACLU decides to spend it's resources there, I am all for it.
Sounds like they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do- fight for the rights of those whose rights are violated!
I personally am a big proponent of the death penalty, however, the ACLU has been absolutely right about the death penalty in every case I have read. Why? Look at all the recent releases of innocent men accused of horrific crimes on death row row, so many the pro-death penalty governer had to call a moratorium on them in what was it, Illinois or Indiana?
It is no secret that only the poor get the death penalty, and sloppy attention to details by everyone, prosecution and defense, is the norm rather than the exception. I regularly saw fifteen minutes of contact with public defenders prior to murder cases working with the mentally ill in a small population state, I can only imagine what it is like where resources are really thin! Reform the system, and then maybe the death penalty will work, but our implementation of it is horrible, and the ACLU are perfectly right in thier opposing it here!
We have a sex offender list here as well, and it has now stood up to the Supreme court challenge from the ACLU. except for one component, and that was the component they argued against the whole time- basically going back to all offenders and putting poeple on the list that had served all thier time and probation- basically going back 30 years prior to the laws passing. Now, you can see the constitutional challenge there can't you?
You can now go on line to the Alaska web page and pull up all the sex offenders pics and stats. So much for them worrying about sex offenders, they were really worried about the constitution after all!
Every single one of the cases you mentioned had a rights protection issue involved in it.
I tell you, if the cincinati police had to reform by court order, there was something very wrong with that police force. It is not easy to fight city hall, and espcially the executive branch of the force. If they were able to get the City of Cincinati police to change thier behavior through settlement, there absolutely had to be something going wrong there in my opinion, simply because the burden of proof is so everwhelmingly the job of ACLU to prove! Personally, if my city police department is so screwed up that the ACLU decides to spend it's resources there, I am all for it.
Sounds like they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do- fight for the rights of those whose rights are violated!
I personally am a big proponent of the death penalty, however, the ACLU has been absolutely right about the death penalty in every case I have read. Why? Look at all the recent releases of innocent men accused of horrific crimes on death row row, so many the pro-death penalty governer had to call a moratorium on them in what was it, Illinois or Indiana?
It is no secret that only the poor get the death penalty, and sloppy attention to details by everyone, prosecution and defense, is the norm rather than the exception. I regularly saw fifteen minutes of contact with public defenders prior to murder cases working with the mentally ill in a small population state, I can only imagine what it is like where resources are really thin! Reform the system, and then maybe the death penalty will work, but our implementation of it is horrible, and the ACLU are perfectly right in thier opposing it here!
We have a sex offender list here as well, and it has now stood up to the Supreme court challenge from the ACLU. except for one component, and that was the component they argued against the whole time- basically going back to all offenders and putting poeple on the list that had served all thier time and probation- basically going back 30 years prior to the laws passing. Now, you can see the constitutional challenge there can't you?
You can now go on line to the Alaska web page and pull up all the sex offenders pics and stats. So much for them worrying about sex offenders, they were really worried about the constitution after all!
Every single one of the cases you mentioned had a rights protection issue involved in it.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Aug 15 2003, 01:38 AM)
And Hugo, perhaps if you ever go blind, or are confined to a wheelchair, you will change your mind about the ADA:
QUOTE
The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990. The evidence of its success is everywhere. Handicap parking spaces, Braille instructions on ATM's, and ramps built into sidewalks have all become commonplace fixtures that make an enormous difference in the lives of persons with disabilities.
(from the ACLU site) I don't think so. I am self-employed and do not support national healthcare despite the fact it could save me $540 a month. This is an issue of private property rights, where the ACLU takes the wrong stance. It is the issue of private property rights, primarily, that seperates the liberal from the classical liberal (libertarian)
The ACLU is not real big on supporting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, nor limiting governments role to what is designated in Article 1 Section 8 of our constitution. They do a great job of supporting the 1st,4th, 5th, 6th and 14th as previously mentioned.
I pretty much agree with James Ziglar, that property rights issue is a big flaw, however.
QUOTE
I tell you, if the cincinati police had to reform by court order, there was something very wrong with that police force....Sounds like they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do- fight for the rights of those whose rights are violated!
Um..no. Just because a judge goes for something doesn't make it right.
Do you really think that blindly trusting a slanted activist org. is safe?
QUOTE
I personally am a big proponent of the death penalty, however, the ACLU has been absolutely right about the death penalty in every case I have read.
Every case, huh?
Your bias is starting to ruin your credibility here. Besides, the vast majority of criminals are arrested because they ARE guilty. There are exceptions, but to say they are right to continuously prevent justice is transparent and ill.QUOTE
We have a sex offender list here as well, and it has now stood up to the Supreme court challenge from the ACLU. except for one component, and that was the component they argued against the whole time- basically going back to all offenders and putting poeple on the list that had served all thier time and probation- basically going back 30 years prior to the laws passing. Now, you can see the constitutional challenge there can't you?
Sex offenders can't be cured. Putting a bigger priority on their comfort than our nation's children is exactly what I mean by obscenely sleazy. Throw pity parties for child molesters all you want, but let it be YOUR kid getting raped as a courtesy for pedophiles.
Thank you for proving my point.
edited to fix quotes - quark
I dislike their stance on gay marriage. Plain and Simple. State government ought to handle that anyhow, not the federal government.
QUOTE(Hugo @ Aug 15 2003, 12:24 PM)
I don't think so. I am self-employed and do not support national healthcare despite the fact it could save me $540 a month. This is an issue of private property rights, where the ACLU takes the wrong stance. It is the issue of private property rights, primarily, that seperates the liberal from the classical liberal (libertarian)
When the Civil Rights Act was passed, it was basically an acknowledgement to the fact that the "market" was not going to fix the problem of minorities being denied equal access to private businesses. Perhaps, in your opinion, the Civil Rights Act should never have been passed, or should have been merely limited to public spaces and government services.
The market may "fix" certain things, in response to consumer demand, but it will only happen if that demand is great enough, right? It's conceivable that the market would eventually have ended racist segregation without government interference, because eventually the movement for change in that direction would have forced business owners to integrate, or probably go out of business.
For disabled people, who make up a smaller minority than blacks (for example), would the market ever respond? Would wheelchair-bound consumers ever have a large enough coalition to force a voluntary change in the market? Would an ADA limited to government property and "common" areas have been acceptable?
I disagree that this is merely a private property issue. It's more complex than that. None of us here has been so extreme as to suggest that government has absolutely no right to interfere in the private market. The very idea of a corporation (which exists through charter given by the state) entwines the market and the government to a degree. The question is, how much interference? You (and all of us) choose ultimately arbitrary points at which we say "stop."
So why are disabled people not entitled to the same level of integrative measures as any other minority?
aquapub:
QUOTE
Every case, huh? Your bias is starting to ruin your credibility here. Besides, the vast majority of criminals are arrested because they ARE guilty. There are exceptions, but to say they are right to continuously prevent justice is transparent and ill.
Bias and credibility. Everyone is biased, to one degree or another. Credibility doesn't get made or broken because of bias. It relates to whether you provide sources and logic for your arguments. If you're going to start poking that finger around here, I suggest you find a mirror. You seem unable to express a single thought without twisting it into some ludicrous statement of extreme bias. By your own measure, your credibility on America's Debate is zero. You counter peoples' ideas (if you disagree) with nothing more than ignorant soundbites.
Here's an example:
QUOTE
Um..no. Just because a judge goes for something doesn't make it right.
Do you really think that blindly trusting a slanted activist org. is safe?
Do you really think that blindly trusting a slanted activist org. is safe?
Not only have you provided nothing to back up your statement, you have made a huge leap - from a common sense sentence (Just because a judge goes for something doesn't make it right) to a question which assumes entirely that your particular paradigm is the only possible way for anyone to see the issue. Another case in point would be your poll question about abortion.
You see, the folks here with real credibility are not unbiased, but they also don't cloak their every statement in a blanket of grandiose assumptions about how and what other people think. I'll give you an example:
Let's say I wanted to find out what you thought about the ACLU's support for affirmative action. I could ask:
Do you think it's perfectly OK to lynch, murder, and commit genocide against black people, or do you support the ACLU's stance?
Now there is a biased question with NO credibility to it. So, too, your responses in this thread, while certainly educating us about how you tend to think, are really unanswerable non sequitors. What's the point of debating, when you are providing such statements without any support?
"you are wrong. Do you really think supporting a group that murders elderly mothers isn't sleazy and vicious?"
That makes as much sense as the answers you are providing.
Sorry this sidebar to aquapub has been so long; I am interested in real debate, not simple mudslinging.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 15 2003, 02:51 AM)
When and how did they defend NAMBLA? Was it thier right to publish or thier right to actually be pedophiles?
Perhaps GoAmerica was referring to this case.....
ACLU asks federal judge to dismiss case against man-boy sex group
Getting back to my comment on the Rodney King prosecution and the lack of interest by the ACLU in pursuing the matter on Fifth Amendment grounds is the following article from the John Birch Society (I know, I know.....)
National ACLU v Local ACLU?
Quark, I think we are on the verge of getting off topic. I will say this that for approximately 100 years the 14th Amendment was ignored. If it had been properly enforced there never would have been a Civil Rights Act. Similarly forcing business owners to make economically disadvantageous "improvements" to accommodate the handicapped is an attack on property rights
The question is why would anyone attack the ACLU. For conservatives the answer is obvious. Libertarians can basically disagree with the ACLU when it attacks property rights and when it supports group rights (i.e. Affirmative Action) over individual rights.
The question is why would anyone attack the ACLU. For conservatives the answer is obvious. Libertarians can basically disagree with the ACLU when it attacks property rights and when it supports group rights (i.e. Affirmative Action) over individual rights.
Quarkhead, I think you grossly misunderstand what credibility is. Strong, opinionated wording does not need to interfere with credibility. Some subjects (like the ACLU) insight strong wording all on there own, from very fair people, because THE ACLU is the problem. If its true its true, no matter how offensive it may be to card-carrying members of the ACLU like you. (Thats a guess)
And you don't need to cite a source verifying common knowledge facts that are in the headlines every day to be credible. You need to cite controversial interpetations like yours, which thus far, you've only done by showing us quotes from those who agree with you, and ACLU website rhetoric, neither of which validate your points at all. Even though you seem to be really unaware of what actual credibility is, I entertained your notion of it with links to EVERY SINGLE ONE of my so called, "claims." (As if they are controversial)
Don't crucify the mainstream for seeing through the ACLU's posturing.
Please don't open up topics if all you are going to do is use them for personal wars. Either debate the points raised or don't.
And you don't need to cite a source verifying common knowledge facts that are in the headlines every day to be credible. You need to cite controversial interpetations like yours, which thus far, you've only done by showing us quotes from those who agree with you, and ACLU website rhetoric, neither of which validate your points at all. Even though you seem to be really unaware of what actual credibility is, I entertained your notion of it with links to EVERY SINGLE ONE of my so called, "claims." (As if they are controversial)
Don't crucify the mainstream for seeing through the ACLU's posturing.
Please don't open up topics if all you are going to do is use them for personal wars. Either debate the points raised or don't.
aquapub - quarkhead has in no way made this personal. Now let's all stop discussing debate tactics in this thread and debate the actual topic, please:
QUOTE
What exactly is wrong with the ACLU?
How would you improve the organization?
How would you improve the organization?
For those of you who aren't familiar with the Inglewood police brutality case, heres a link to it:
http://search.cnn.com/cnn/redir?source=cnn...io%2Findex.html
On MSNBC last week, they had a report on the hung jury, and they mentioned that each of the officers who were present verified that the black youth being slammed onto the hood of the police car (while he was in hand cuffs) had a hold of the accused officer's testicles.
The officer had been repeating that since early on in the investigation, but that hasn't stopped the ACLU (and the NAACP) from routinely mentioning it as evidence of racial bias nearly every time they speak on police brutality.
That is what needs to change about the ACLU. That is what I mean by obscenely sleazy.
http://search.cnn.com/cnn/redir?source=cnn...io%2Findex.html
On MSNBC last week, they had a report on the hung jury, and they mentioned that each of the officers who were present verified that the black youth being slammed onto the hood of the police car (while he was in hand cuffs) had a hold of the accused officer's testicles.
The officer had been repeating that since early on in the investigation, but that hasn't stopped the ACLU (and the NAACP) from routinely mentioning it as evidence of racial bias nearly every time they speak on police brutality.
That is what needs to change about the ACLU. That is what I mean by obscenely sleazy.
QUOTE(aquapub @ Aug 15 2003, 08:45 PM)
QUOTE
I tell you, if the cincinati police had to reform by court order, there was something very wrong with that police force....Sounds like they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do- fight for the rights of those whose rights are violated!
Um..no. Just because a judge goes for something doesn't make it right.
Do you really think that blindly trusting a slanted activist org. is safe?
QUOTE
I personally am a big proponent of the death penalty, however, the ACLU has been absolutely right about the death penalty in every case I have read.
Every case, huh?
Your bias is starting to ruin your credibility here. Besides, the vast majority of criminals are arrested because they ARE guilty. There are exceptions, but to say they are right to continuously prevent justice is transparent and ill.QUOTE
We have a sex offender list here as well, and it has now stood up to the Supreme court challenge from the ACLU. except for one component, and that was the component they argued against the whole time- basically going back to all offenders and putting poeple on the list that had served all thier time and probation- basically going back 30 years prior to the laws passing. Now, you can see the constitutional challenge there can't you?
Sex offenders can't be cured. Putting a bigger priority on their comfort than our nation's children is exactly what I mean by obscenely sleazy. Throw pity parties for child molesters all you want, but let it be YOUR kid getting raped as a courtesy for pedophiles.
Thank you for proving my point.
edited to fix quotes - quark
ACtually, you made my point for me- even though child molestors are evil poeple, the constitution must be upheld, and writing a law, and making it apply retroactively, as in the case of the molesters, they passed a law after these poeple had served thier time, and then made the law retroactive. Now, understanding and empathizing the reason for this, if this precedent is set, then there is no protection from another congress from passing a law, against for hypothetical talk, blue jeans, and making everybody that wore blue jeans in the past criminally liable for breaking the law before the law was passed. The ACLU was absolutely right to go against this law, but did not fight the provision here of placing them on the list, just of making the law retroactive!
NOw, I read your link about the NAMBLA case, and once again, they are in the right, and actually STRENGTHEN the case that gun makers are not liable for thier product, because it re-inforced the thought that the individual is responsible for thier behavior, not some mag or article, a really basic free speech issue. This is also the crux of the Judas Priest case, that they were somehow responsible for the suicide of a teen. I think it is a very good thing that the ACLU defends these horrible cases from knee jerk reactions in order to keep us all free.
I read the CNN spar fest, and agree with the guy being afraid for his life HELLO- THIS IS THE LAPD- let's see, we have Rodney King, Rampart division, yadda yadda, I think I would be in fear of my life certainly, I don't buy the fact that this sixteen year old had a hold of this cops testicles, I think they got caught again and want that original, so they can "oops" it!
I think the real argument can be made by comparison. A conservative will fault the ACLU for defending the KKK, Nambla etc when there is a breach of constitution in our zeal to catch the bad guys, but will be silent whent the NRA does the same when defending gun confiscation after something like the Columbine shooting. Would it be fair to say the NRA supports snipers and school shooters simply because they bring suit against certain legislation that will lead to gun confiscation, even if the result is a decrease in school shootings? The only anti-ACLU part that holds up is the philosophy that they don't fight for every single Bill, constitutional challenge or amendment with the same vigour, such as gun rights. Quite frankly, the ACLU doesn't need to , the NRA does a fine job.
Here are some reasons the ACLU has fallen into disfavor with some:
Additionally, there is no action by the ACLU in regards to the opening of a gays-only high school and they have not attacked the odious campus speech codes necessitating the creation of FIRE.
The ACLU appears to pick and choose their cases not based upon the Constitutional relevancy but rather their own political agenda.
M L Iserman
QUOTE
Some cases that have prompted this criticism:
- Earlier this year, a Bronx high school student was suspended for bringing a loaded gun to class. The ACLU persuaded a judge to reverse the suspension, arguing that the student was searched without cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. An appeals court overturned the judge's ruling.
- In Cambridge, the ACLU this month persuaded Massachusetts' highest court to strike down a law that banned panhandling, arguing that begging is protected by the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee. In New York, despite ACLU challenges, courts upheld more specific statutes that outlaw panhandling near ATMs, in subways, or in a way that blocks pedestrians or cars.
- In Seattle and in Berkeley and Santa Cruz, Calif., statutes outlawed sitting or lying on public sidewalks during business hours - and the ACLU filed lawsuits against them.
- In San Jose, the City Council invoked a "public nuisance" law to bar gang members from hanging out on street corners, carrying tire irons, chains, or beepers. The ACLU argued the law violated the constitutional right to assemble. A court upheld the City Council.
- In New York's East Harlem, an all-girls' public school was set up in response to studies showing that girls of certain ages learn better when separated from boys. The ACLU filed a motion to shut the school down, arguing that it violated federal statutes forbidding gender discrimination. The case is pending.
- Also in New York, the ACLU opposed a bill requiring hospitals to test newborn babies for the HIV virus, arguing that it would violate mothers' right to privacy. After a prolonged lobbying battle, the law passed the state Legislature this year.
ACLU Under Fire Again - Boston Globe
- Earlier this year, a Bronx high school student was suspended for bringing a loaded gun to class. The ACLU persuaded a judge to reverse the suspension, arguing that the student was searched without cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. An appeals court overturned the judge's ruling.
- In Cambridge, the ACLU this month persuaded Massachusetts' highest court to strike down a law that banned panhandling, arguing that begging is protected by the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee. In New York, despite ACLU challenges, courts upheld more specific statutes that outlaw panhandling near ATMs, in subways, or in a way that blocks pedestrians or cars.
- In Seattle and in Berkeley and Santa Cruz, Calif., statutes outlawed sitting or lying on public sidewalks during business hours - and the ACLU filed lawsuits against them.
- In San Jose, the City Council invoked a "public nuisance" law to bar gang members from hanging out on street corners, carrying tire irons, chains, or beepers. The ACLU argued the law violated the constitutional right to assemble. A court upheld the City Council.
- In New York's East Harlem, an all-girls' public school was set up in response to studies showing that girls of certain ages learn better when separated from boys. The ACLU filed a motion to shut the school down, arguing that it violated federal statutes forbidding gender discrimination. The case is pending.
- Also in New York, the ACLU opposed a bill requiring hospitals to test newborn babies for the HIV virus, arguing that it would violate mothers' right to privacy. After a prolonged lobbying battle, the law passed the state Legislature this year.
ACLU Under Fire Again - Boston Globe
Additionally, there is no action by the ACLU in regards to the opening of a gays-only high school and they have not attacked the odious campus speech codes necessitating the creation of FIRE.
The ACLU appears to pick and choose their cases not based upon the Constitutional relevancy but rather their own political agenda.
M L Iserman
Also... in regards to the Amadou Diallo case...
Even the American Civil Liberties Union, the very bastion of due process -- which is the constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury -- ran a full-page ad in the New York Times, essentially declaring the police officers guilty before the cops presented their side of what happened that night.
In the ads, the ACLU showed the Miranda warnings -- "You have the right to remain silent," etc. -- with a bullet piercing every word. At the bottom of the page, the reader was told that "the police," having "killed an unarmed, innocent man," had also wounded "the right of every American to due process of law." What about the due-process rights of the cops -- and their presumption of innocence?
ACLU: Guilty until presumed innocent?
And affirmative action...
In this land of constitutional democracy, here is the ACLU--the oldest and most visible civil liberties organization in the country--telling this young woman that it does not matter who she is beneath her skin and what lifelong obstacles she has overcome to emerge as her own independent person.
The ACLU is protective of individual liberties and rights in its other cases, but when it comes to this form of affirmative action, it supports preferences by race and finds it necessary to exclude persons solely because they are the wrong color.
When the ACLU Supports Discrimination
Are these not examples of ACLU hypocrisy?
M L Iserman
QUOTE
Even the American Civil Liberties Union, the very bastion of due process -- which is the constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury -- ran a full-page ad in the New York Times, essentially declaring the police officers guilty before the cops presented their side of what happened that night.
In the ads, the ACLU showed the Miranda warnings -- "You have the right to remain silent," etc. -- with a bullet piercing every word. At the bottom of the page, the reader was told that "the police," having "killed an unarmed, innocent man," had also wounded "the right of every American to due process of law." What about the due-process rights of the cops -- and their presumption of innocence?
ACLU: Guilty until presumed innocent?
And affirmative action...
QUOTE
In this land of constitutional democracy, here is the ACLU--the oldest and most visible civil liberties organization in the country--telling this young woman that it does not matter who she is beneath her skin and what lifelong obstacles she has overcome to emerge as her own independent person.
The ACLU is protective of individual liberties and rights in its other cases, but when it comes to this form of affirmative action, it supports preferences by race and finds it necessary to exclude persons solely because they are the wrong color.
When the ACLU Supports Discrimination
Are these not examples of ACLU hypocrisy?
M L Iserman
Hi miserman - please avoid posting two post in a row. If you were the last person to post, you merely need to go in & edit your last post to make your additional comments. If 12 hours have passed, however, go ahead & make a new post because your edit window will have closed. Thanks! 
Yes, protecting the scum of society is not bound to make you popular, but I feel safer knowing that there is a group like the ACLU preventing a "creep" of laws designed to get the bad guys but eventually ensnaring innocent poeple in them. If you look at some of the great right wing causes of the 80s and 90s, you see this is precisely what happened in some areas. Things like Ruby Ridge, Waco etc would have not happened if we hadn't given the goverment so much power to go after drug dealers. Sure, we want murderers and rapists caught and killed, but we don't want our innocent family members caught up in it either. During the Old USSR, the most active serial killer/rapist of all time was opporating, part of Hannible Lector is based on him because he cannibalized this victims. They executed 10 innocent men before they executed him! The ACLU represents the bad guys in constitutional court cases or cases that might mean a loss of freedom for non-criminals down the line. It is never going to be a pretty case that the ACLU wins with the good guy being the person the ACLU represents, because that is not where the law gets changed. AS the biggest single freedom fighter of our generation, Larry Flynnt said "IF the constitution protects a scumbag like me, then everybody is free".
True, however, when the ACLU chooses to defend the “scum of society” and work actively against a hard-working mother of four simply because she has the wrong skin-color, then I think they deserve to be heavily criticized. Don’t you?
Also, when the pick and choose who they feel should be protected by the Constitution, as in the Diallo newspaper advert, are they not acting in contrast with their stated purpose?
The ACLU has limited resources, thus, they can’t take every case; however, is it better that they defend NAMBLA than students who are being persecuted by the university administration simply for voicing a point of view that is unpopular on campus?
M L Iserman
Also, when the pick and choose who they feel should be protected by the Constitution, as in the Diallo newspaper advert, are they not acting in contrast with their stated purpose?
The ACLU has limited resources, thus, they can’t take every case; however, is it better that they defend NAMBLA than students who are being persecuted by the university administration simply for voicing a point of view that is unpopular on campus?
M L Iserman
I don't know the instances you are talking about, can you post article or link to clear up your example?
CruisingRam,
The links are already there in my previous posts (except for NAMBLA - I believe someone else posted those links.)
I invite you to visit the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and review the cases with which they are involved. Then, ask yourself, "Why didn't the ACLU defend this person?"
M L Iserman
The links are already there in my previous posts (except for NAMBLA - I believe someone else posted those links.)
I invite you to visit the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and review the cases with which they are involved. Then, ask yourself, "Why didn't the ACLU defend this person?"
M L Iserman
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.