Go back to majority rule?: Forget ACLU?

[Suddenly]

Contrary to popular belief, the ACLU doesn't initiate lawsuits. They take the cases of average cititzens. If there's any agenda, it's on the part of the citizen.

I can vouch for this. When I considered taking a position with my state ACLU, most of my day to day activity would have been sifting through the complaints and such of regular private citizens and determine which were valid cases worth pursuing given available resources. The ACLU it seems has enough on its hands responding to the people to actually go out and look for trouble.

 

[Suddenly]

False. The ACLU does nothing but defend the Bill Of Rights. So I'm guessing you are actually opposed to these rights.

Sometimes the ACLU goes further than the Bill of Rights in defending civil liberties and rights.

Unfortunately some people come to the conclusion that they are somehow endowed with the knowledge that what is or isn't covered by the Bill of Rights, and that their personal interpretation is somehow "correct," and those who may have a different take on things are pushing some nefarious agenda. The ACLU largely takes the most pro-liberty / civil rights stance reasonable given the case law.

 

[Zero]

Isn't the majority of American geography in private hands? The vast minority of out lives is spend in government buildings, and these are the only places where the ACLU is making a stand against religious symbols. Are Christians so insecure in their faith that they can't feel comfortable without explicit government endorcement?

Also, I love the way the Religious Wrong ignores all the times where the ACLU steps in to defend religious liberty for individuals. Since it doesn't fit their anti-'liberal' mythology, they pretend those cases don't exist.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Isn't the majority of American geography in private hands? The vast minority of out lives is spend in government buildings, and these are the only places where the ACLU is making a stand against religious symbols. Are Christians so insecure in their faith that they can't feel comfortable without explicit government endorcement?

Also, I love the way the Religious Wrong ignores all the times where the ACLU steps in to defend religious liberty for individuals. Since it doesn't fit their anti-'liberal' mythology, they pretend those cases don't exist.

Reminds me of the time that concerned X-ians defiantly put crosses, or the ten commandments or whatever (maybe life-sized statues of 'Buddy Jesus') in their yards to fly in the face of the ACLU. To which an ACLU spokesperson said something along the lines of, we're quite happy for you to do that, in fact if anyone tries to stop you doing that give us a call.

D'oh!

 

[Luke T.]

Sometimes the ACLU goes further than the Bill of Rights in defending civil liberties and rights.

Unfortunately some people come to the conclusion that they are somehow endowed with the knowledge that what is or isn't covered by the Bill of Rights, and that their personal interpretation is somehow "correct," and those who may have a different take on things are pushing some nefarious agenda. The ACLU largely takes the most pro-liberty / civil rights stance reasonable given the case law.

By being selective of what cases they take, that is an agenda.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

By being selective of what cases they take, that is an agenda.

But is it a nefarious one?

 

[Luke T.]

But is it a nefarious one?

I really don't know. Sometimes I wonder about them, though. Like making a big fuss over a plastic Jesus in a manger at Christmas when there must be bigger problems that need solving.

Why don't they devote more energy toward getting rid of the Patriot Act?

This is a right-wing conservative saying this.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I really don't know. Sometimes I wonder about them, though. Like making a big fuss over a plastic Jesus in a manger at Christmas when there must be bigger problems that need solving.

Why don't they devote more energy toward getting rid of the Patriot Act?

This is a right-wing conservative saying this.

You can't be that right-wing- you don't want guns on planes.

Edit: But to actually answer your question, it looks as though they are doing something. Maybe there's only so much they can do.

 

[Tony]

False. The ACLU does nothing but defend the Bill Of Rights.

No evidence? That's what I thought. Contrary to you, I do have evidence that the ACLU isn’t interesting in the Bill of Rights as much as they are interested in pushing an agenda. Look at their stances on affirmative action and gun control.

 

[Tmy]

Its kinda funny that the whole injunction to remove manger scene from Town Halll lawn has in itself become an Xmas tradition. There should be a Norman Rockwell painting of the court hearing. Or an "You're in the ACLU Charlie Brown" Xmas special.

Its been done to death. The ACLU doesnt even have to show up cause theres so much clear case law that any local attorney can easily bring the action.

 

[Luke T.]

Its kinda funny that the whole injunction to remove manger scene from Town Halll lawn has in itself become an Xmas tradition.

ROTFLMAO!

 

[Suddenly]

By being selective of what cases they take, that is an agenda.

Umm. Yeah. They kinda do have an agenda. That whole "Civil Rights and Liberties" thing. They aren't going to be taking any simple car-crash cases soon. Then there is a question of resources. They can't take every case, so they have to limit themselves in some way. The main criteria they use is that they try to avoid cases where facts are in dispute. These cost a lot more than cases where there is only a question of law. Then, there is a question of what cases forward their mission in the best way.

 

[Luke T.]

Umm. Yeah. They kinda do have an agenda. That whole "Civil Rights and Liberties" thing. They aren't going to be taking any simple car-crash cases soon. Then there is a question of resources. They can't take every case, so they have to limit themselves in some way. The main criteria they use is that they try to avoid cases where facts are in dispute. These cost a lot more than cases where there is only a question of law. Then, there is a question of what cases forward their mission in the best way.

I am going to be very careful in what I say next, and I don't want to be misunderstood. So bear with me, okay?

When you say the ACLU's only agenda is "that whole Civil Rights and Liberties thing," I kinda cringe. This is because it reminds me of another organizaton I was just debating about a few days ago. International A.N.S.W.E.R. which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. With a name like that, if you say anything against them for their extreme leftist "agenda", it sounds like you are for war and racism. You see what I'm saying?

So if the ACLU says they are all about civil rights and liberties, and anyone is critical of them, I sure hope it isn't taken to mean their critics are against civil rights and liberties. They aren't. They are against their agenda.

 

[gnome]

I think it's possible to make a case that the ACLU has biased priorities. But I think it's much harder to convince that their civil rights thrust is a front for their political agenda.

But I would argue even against the former... it seems their highest priority currently is the Patriot Act, which IMHO is exactly what it should be.

 

[Suddenly]

I am going to be very careful in what I say next, and I don't want to be misunderstood. So bear with me, okay?

When you say the ACLU's only agenda is "that whole Civil Rights and Liberties thing," I kinda cringe. This is because it reminds me of another organizaton I was just debating about a few days ago. International A.N.S.W.E.R. which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. With a name like that, if you say anything against them for their extreme leftist "agenda", it sounds like you are for war and racism. You see what I'm saying?

So if the ACLU says they are all about civil rights and liberties, and anyone is critical of them, I sure hope it isn't taken to mean their critics are against civil rights and liberties. They aren't. They are against their agenda.

Thanks for typing that slowly. I agree with what you are saying 100%.

My point was that their selectiveness comes from limited resources, and their opinion as to civil rights, and not from any nefarious plan beyond that. There can be honest differences of opinion.

I don't think "Those that disagree with the ACLU must be against civil rights and liberties." All such disagreement shows is that they disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of what those rights are. This is kind of what I was saying in one of the other posts, where Tony seems to make the sort of argument you decry, only in reverse, that the ACLU must not be for civil liberties/rights as it does not agree with his interpretation of those liberties/rights.

I think the sort of labeling problem you identified above is a HUGE problem in politics today. I'd be against anyone that claimed that opposition to the ACLU is opposition to civil liberties, or that opposition to PETA means you want to kill puppies for fun, or that disagreement with Libertarian policy means you hate freedom.

So I agree as far as that goes.

 

[Luke T.]

Thanks for typing that slowly. I agree with what you are saying 100%.

My point was that their selectiveness comes from limited resources, and their opinion as to civil rights, and not from any nefarious plan beyond that. There can be honest differences of opinion.

I don't think "Those that disagree with the ACLU must be against civil rights and liberties." All such disagreement shows is that they disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of what those rights are. This is kind of what I was saying in one of the other posts, where Tony seems to make the sort of argument you decry, only in reverse, that the ACLU must not be for civil liberties/rights as it does not agree with his interpretation of those liberties/rights.

I think the sort of labeling problem you identified above is a HUGE problem in politics today. I'd be against anyone that claimed that opposition to the ACLU is opposition to civil liberties, or that opposition to PETA means you want to kill puppies for fun, or that disagreement with Libertarian policy means you hate freedom.

So I agree as far as that goes.

Outstanding!

 

[Tony]

This is kind of what I was saying in one of the other posts, where Tony seems to make the sort of argument you decry, only in reverse, that the ACLU must not be for civil liberties/rights as it does not agree with his interpretation of those liberties/rights.

I’m not so arrogant as to think that my interpretation should prevail. But the ACLU's "interpretation" of the second amendment is a flagrant perversion of what the 2nd amendment really is. They have no evidence to justify their "interpretation" of it.

 

[Luke T.]

I am having a hard time getting my thoughts to gel in a coherent manner as to the problem I have over the "separation of church and state" issue, but I'll give it a shot.

I am not sure that the real issue is about church and state more than it is about offensiveness. The counter-argument about putting Satan on the Town Hall front lawn seems to indicate that.

I think the ACLU demonstrated their lack of understanding of this when they defended the Nazis' right to march through the Jewish community of Skokie, IL way back in the 80s.

They seem to have tunnel vision. An obsession with one form of "rights" at the expense of other rights. Perhaps that is what Tony means, but I don't know.

 

[Tmy]

What is there interpretation of the 2nd?


The ACLU is not some computer. I imagine its lead by a diveres board. So of course they are going develope priorities and opinions on a # of civil rights issues. Man Id love to see these meetings. A bunch of strong willed people trying to hammer out a sole opinion on highly debated matters. What a show that must be.


Ya know, the NRA is just like the ACLU only with a more defined focus.

 

[Tony]

What is there interpretation of the 2nd?

Its on their website.

Ya know, the NRA is just like the ACLU only with a more defined focus.

Except the NRA is more consistent. Ultimately, I support both groups; I just have some beef with the ACLU.