Who Gave Away Their Rights To The ACLU?

I believe I understand them also, but I guess the question remains that isn't it just possible, or even highly likely, that any one of the examples you gave, could not have had the same results if they had presented the issue befor the courts themselves. So what was done, IMO, is not out of the ordinary, but only allowing a third party do your fighting for you, in a battle you could have won by yourself.
The other part that bothers me is the fact that they don't ususlly wait until ask to help, but barge in and try and take over the situation. Typical lawyer fashion, if you know what I mean. In these part they are called Ambulance chassers and are given no respect.

So for some of you it must seem to be as great as toasted cheese sandwiches, but for me it's intrusion into my personal rights do do for myself.

 

whether these churches or organizations could do it themselves is irrelevant to the point that they have and do help all groups when it comes to certain issues...and help religious organizations of all types protect their religious freedoms.

In some cases listed they were specifically asked to help, I am sure in others they take it upon themselves to offer and take a case because, I guess, they feel it is an important issue that goes beyond that one persons case when it comes to setting precedence...

I am not a big fan of the ACLU when I heard they defended the right of NAMBLA to publish literature about sex with young boys.... but again, I do understand why they defend who they defend. If I have a case, and I dont want the ACLU defending me, I assume I have complete right not to take their help and council...no one can force me to accept council I do not want...

 

Are you real sure about that?
The ACLU can and has filed as 'friend of the court' and this is done with or without your permisssion. You aren't even ask, as it's all up to the judge and the lawyers.

 

They can do as they please if they want to advocate me, I can hire my own lawyers and council and make it clear they are not speaking for me..either way...I kinda see them as a neccesary evil in that they protect freedoms of every kind, even those that are distastefull...Just because I think its wrong doesnt mean it is objectively wrong and I guess if I want the freedom to say what I please, I need to tolerate those people who are saying things that are objectionable to me as it is obvious to me that I say things others would would rather ME not say

 

Republicans love to hate the ACLU. They see them as a threat to corporate dominance and good little Republicans can't even articulate why they hate the ACLU but that never stops them from citing individual cases that don't represent the scope of the organization. The more civil liberties I have that the government or the corporations of this country can't take away from me the better. How anyone could be for less civil liberties is beyond me. It is a given that the ACLU can't just defend the civil liberties that are in vogue at the time or are PC socially, they have to defend all infringements of civil liberties whether they agree with them or not. That only makes sense if they are to maintain their reputation of defending civil liberties whenever they are threatened. Many people push the boundaries of civil liberties in a free society by pushing pornography, prostitution, and other socially unacceptable practices but just because the morals of one group don't happen to agree with the morals of another group, it doesn't mean that one group has the right to impinge on the other's civil liberties. The ACLU makes sure that their are justifiable reasons to ban something like prostitution in our society that aren't just one group asserting it's morals on another group. If good little Republicans actually stopped and examined the scope of the ACLU and stopped citing individual cases they disagree with, and we can all do that, they might actually realize that the party line isn't always what it is supposed to be. That kind of open mindedness isn't really a hallmark the Republican faithful to be sure.

 

When I say you are ignorant it is not an insult, it simply meant that on this topic you are woefully ill-informed.

You sir are ignorant:hammer:

 

Thanks Danr, that is a compliment coming from you. I wouldn't have it any other way.:hug:

 

Let me know when he's through blowing!

 

ah, Moen's post was insightful, you should review it.

 

Boy would I love to seeyou, and only you fighting for your rights in court. Or if perhaps you wanted to claim the government/local or otherwise was infringing on your public access. I'm sure you would sway judge and jury with yokel homilies and tale of days gone by. No one in this forum is suprised that you dont like the ACLU. The KKK doesnt like that group either. But they sure needed them when it came time. I cannot imagine what kind of facist, tyrannical, Orwellian country this might be without a group like the ACLU. I'm sure you can. And if you keep wanting to shred the Constitution, just a little bit at a time, you'll get your dream police state.

 

Great you can go to them when the Patriot act affects you or someone you care about. You'll find the bar is closed. ....A fourth grader in line at the school cafateria shouts out.."You'll be sorry if thers no mashe potatoes when I get up there!". Charged with terrorist threat. Due to the Patriot act. That was a good call.

 

I've never known what to make of the ACLU, so I've refrained from posting up until now. Sometimes they perform a valuable service by holding the government's feet to the fire by always assuming the rights of the individual are paramount unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the Consitution intended to grant the government the powers to do what they wish in a particular case. But then they get mixed up with defending nutcases, trivia, and dangerous anti-social individuals and groups. I suppose there is a certain purity and consistency there, but I wish they would substitute some common sense.

 

Nutcases, pervs and certian detestable groups. According to who? No offense, but that would be your opinion. (I know you didnt write pervs, so i apologize). You cannot only defend the innocent. Thats the way it is here. You have to take the bad with the good. Sometimes the bad guy gets away. Say McVey didnt have a lawyer. So what, right? He was guilty hands down. But the thats not law is it? All the ACLU does is make sure the rules apply to everyone. Not just the guys you like. Or I like. If you cant have a star of David in the park, then you cant have a cross. Seems simple to me. If you allow Bob to speak up about how great America is, then You have to let Joe point out it's faults.

 

Just curious, but why would you want a 'star of David' in the park in the first place?

 

they do defend NAMBLA and there isnt much more detestable of a group out there. NAMBLA was being told they could not distribute 'fictional' stories that depicted sex with under age boys (rape)...it was thought they were disguising methods to lure young boys into having sex with men, in essence disseminating 'how to' information under the guise of fictional stories about, in their opinion, harmless sex between grown men and boys (again...rape). NAMBLA argued that they should be able to print and give out these stories under freedom of speech...now again...although this is repulsive, I do understand why the ACLU helped them...I just dont have to like it or support it with my money...I DO think they could be a bit more selective in who they champion....I think is some extreme cases...our society would just be better off without certain things...NAMBLA (a group dedicated to the rape of young boys) being one of them.

 

religious groups often like to put their symbols and other things out in public places.

 

I personally see no harm in this practice. In fact, it is only doing what our so called founding father ask to have all around them in Washington. Were you aware of:
1. As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view .. it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

2. As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

3. As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!

4. There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington , D.C.

And:
5. Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with this?

 

I was just answering your question as to why someone would want a star of david in a park.

 

Hmmm, Last evening I posed your mashed potato scenario to a couple of public school teachers I know. One in Texas and one in South Dakota. The answers were different and yet the same.

In Texas the youth would be removed from the line and sent to the principles office where he or she would be given talking too about proper behavior and then asked to apologize. If an apology isn't forthcoming, well then a spanking with a wooden paddle might loosen those lips (if the parents have given written permission for corporal punishment) and then another chance for that apology. *He or She would be allowed to sign the paddle after the spanking but not before. If the apology is still withheld a three day expulsion is next, then another chance for that apology. So far (40 year Texas Public Schools teacher) it has never gone beyond the three days.

In SoDak well here there is a (Zero-Tolerance) for any sort of threat communicated and heard by staff. They would just expel the kid, send them home (not on a SchoolBus either) and let the school board vote on when he or she could return.

Now does that make Little Bully-Johnny ( I added little Bully-Johnny even though you didn't type it) a terrorist. Yes, why yes it does because he's terrorized the other children in his little class and as a youthful terrorist he should be caught and exposed for the dumb*** he is. All the whining and complaining to the ACLU in either case would only get Little Johnny further behind and deeper in debt so-to-speak...

No, the ACLU offers very little...

 

I would agree that something like the Patriot Act needs to be challenged, but asserting that adults have a Constitutional right to have sex with children is a little bit out there in my opinion, but that's just me.