| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/9/2009 6:54:23 PM | and Charles
You assume the Constitution is perfect. If it was then there would be absolutely no ambiguity in terms of how define human rights. The Framers were smarter than that. It was intended to evolve, to change with the time and new knowledge. Why do you think the Framers included a Supreme Court and also allow slavery to continue at the same time? Dont forget Plessy vs Ferguson and later Brown vs the Board of Education.
Another question. Do you think that slaveholders consciously chose to disregard the fact that black people have feelings? A redundant question. So what is one doing when she aborts a baby seven months into gestation? Babies have feelings long before they are born, just like those black slaves had feelings. And unborn children are the most helpless of anyone. So where does your definition of the "little guy" or that of the ACLUs fit here?
Since the littlest guy with the loudest voice is the most correct in your book then lets lobby the Court to adopt the American National Socialist's definition of human rights. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/9/2009 7:02:55 PM | Where4
Good call on Conservative talk radio. On another note I think it was Michael Medved I heard say in a discussion with two authors that the United States engineered the overthrow of the Shah.
WTF? | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/9/2009 7:43:15 PM | I know we're not supposed to address other posters by name. I'm taking a chance here.
Sd Matt, you have very strong feelings about abortion. Frankly, I don't agree with you, but I understand your position. Hell, lots of good liberals (Martin Sheen comes to mind) feel the same way. I'm not going to attack your position, but the way your feelings have been manipulated by one party. First, late term abortions are rarely performed and only for very dire circumstances. It's not a method of post facto birth control.
Second, the Republicans have dominated the Presidency since 68 - I think only 2 current Supremes were appointed by Democratic presidents. Cynically, the GOP just uses this issue to motivate you to vote for them. They're never going to change the law since it's the best vote getter in their arsenal. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/9/2009 9:02:32 PM |
Where4
Good call on Conservative talk radio. On another note I think it was Michael Medved I heard say in a discussion with two authors that the United States engineered the overthrow of the Shah.
WTF?
Someone is mistaken.
They engineered the overthrow of his democratically elected predecessor, Mohammed Mossadeq, through Operation Ajax headed up by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.(grandson of Teddy).
They installed the near fascist Shah of Iran who was overthrown pro-Khomeni revolutionary forces, hardly America friendly. That's more likely what you heard. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/10/2009 1:12:05 AM | You assume the Constitution is perfect. If it was then there would be absolutely no ambiguity in terms of how define human rights. The Framers were smarter than that. It was intended to evolve, to change with the time and new knowledge. Why do you think the Framers included a Supreme Court and also allow slavery to continue at the same time? Dont forget Plessy vs Ferguson and later Brown vs the Board of Education.
Oh I agree absolutely. You're forgetting though, the ACLU makes it's challenges based on the constitution. If you don't like the constitution there are ways of changing it. I'll also note that slavery and such had a great deal of popular support at the time, something that according to mean it was moraly justifiable.
Since the littlest guy with the loudest voice is the most correct in your book then lets lobby the Court to adopt the American National Socialist's definition of human rights.
Straw man.
By the time of Brown vs the Board of education the majority of America (including the majority of conservatives) felt that school segregation was wrong.
Yes they showed it in their protests and harassment didn't they?
Morality is not a function of simple democracy.
ACLU lawyers fought the scopes trial. The ACLU ended state bans on interacial marriages. The ACLU is a huge defender of the 2nd amendment. In fact before the ACLU the 2nd amendment was historically useless.
So pardon me if I don't really give a damn about priviliged white heterosexual men complaining that the ACLU is over riding their wishes to use the ellectoral process to descriminate against a minority. | |
|
| |
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/10/2009 7:57:18 AM |
First, late term abortions are rarely performed and only for very dire circumstances. Poppycock.
Late term abortions are performed all the time and not "only for dire circumastance".
Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth, sixth and many in the seventh months of pregnancy. This stage, an infant who is born spontaneously is usually born alive. And more shameful, there is abundant medical evidence that the baby at this stage is extremely sensitive to pain.
~In the News: George R. Tiller, who has been charged with 19 counts of illegal late-term abortions, will stand a jury trial on Monday, March 16. Last month, a district judge denied a motion by Tiller's attorneys to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges against him.
http://www.christianpost.com/Society/General/2009/03/pro-lifers-to-hold-prayer-rallies-during-trial-of-late-term-abortionist-10/ | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/12/2009 7:55:44 PM | Charles
I think you believe there is some higher morality than ourselves and the ACLU, or anyone outside of the mainstream, is it. For the Christians it is the bible. My view is that we learn and grow. What we all agree on is what we should put into law. Oops but we cant do that 100%. Whats the next best thing?
Straw man schmraw man. So the little guy is always right?
Again, based on the Constitution... it isnt perfect. It has subjectivity. So who is the perfect entity to interpret it? Where is that group of perfect human beings. Oh I forgot. The little guy...he is always right. There's a non thinking answer. Just as brilliant as an imaginary deity. Better to put power into fewer hands as long as they carry the banner of "looking out for the little guy". Give the illusion of the perfect answer and forget reality. History has seen this one before. Either you are either looking for a perfect answer that doesn't exist or you are an elitist that thinks the rest of us are not up to the task. Yet the ACLU has the perfect answer. And their qualification is a card with four letters. Brilliant.
You didnt answer the question in abortion. Is an unborn ( late term) who has feelings ( just like slaves and all other oppressed) the small guy? They are the most helpless of all. Remember...old white Southerner chose to relegate the feelings of slaves to second place to economics. In this equation you have to choose to limit the freedoms of the mother or kill someone with feelings like you and me. Which one is the greater oppression? Wheres your perfect answer? | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/12/2009 7:58:49 PM | Half time dad.
I think for myself. My values come from searching within my own heart. I have a low regard for both of the major political parties. If you look for patterns and disregard whats on the surface then you would feel the same. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/12/2009 8:06:15 PM | Themanfiddler
You are correct in the history. Thats why I couldnt believe my ears. Neither could one of the two guests/autors.
And this from a right-wing guy. Dont get me wrong. All the pundits are very selective about the facts cherry-pick and then present. But this was just nuts. Something right out of, gosh, I dont where the hell it came from. A right-wing guy would present the Shah as the lesser of two evils. To me they are just different flavors of oppression. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/18/2009 6:42:54 PM |
Since the littlest guy with the loudest voice is the most correct in your book then lets lobby the Court to adopt the American National Socialist's definition of human rights.
Ding ding ding ding ding!!! Oh, I'm sorry, you lose! Please enjoy this fine Samsonite luggage and 40-year supply of Turtle Wax, though.
I don't where to begin with the myriad insane, ignorant, and/or repellent things this guy has said, so I'll keep it short.
Nobody said the "little guy" is always right. However, in a democracy (or, here, a democratic republic) it is the rights of the less popular people that are in most need of protection. Speech, for example, that most people find agreeable has little need for constitutional protection. The speech that the majority finds offensive is the speech that needs protection. That is why you will find the (usually) valiant ACLU predominantly representing "the little guy." If the will of the democratic majority automatically defined the scope of constitutional rights, the very idea of constitutional rights would be meaningless.
With regard to this NAMBLA idiocy, people should remember (or not lie about) the fact that any defense by the ACLU is directed solely to that horrible group's free speech and press rights. Nobody in the ACLU defends raping children as some kind of constitutional right or anything other than a heinous crime. It's a real shame that this fact is inconvenient for those who want to demonize the ACLU.
Finally, for now at least, people should be aware that the "ACLU" is not some monolithic organization. The national ACLU actually handles relatively little litigation, with the vast bulk being handled by state and local affiliates. I can attest from personal experience that what cases and positions are taken are the subject of frequent and intense disagreement.
But it's just a facet, to an extent, of the hatred so many people have for lawyers, all crooks and liars and traitors ... except their lawyer, of course. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/21/2009 8:29:00 PM | "If the will of the democratic majority automatically defined the scope of constitutional rights, the very idea of constitutional rights would be meaningless" What do you think democracy attempts to do in the most fundamental way?????? Please elaborate on this question..do you think it is possible to represent 100 percent of the population without destroying democracy. I can think of only way...
Is the Constitution written so perfectly that there is absolutely no ambiguity? ( the 10th time Ive asked)
Lets say we discover some new nook or cranny in the Constitution.....Whom do you consult before you write your Amicus Curiae? Which position do you advocate? Do you ask the Supreme Court how it would most likely interpret or do you just interpret it yourself and start writing?
Racial segregation was a no brainer. The gray area is separation of church and state. The boy scouts is another.
| |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/22/2009 11:11:52 PM |
"If the will of the democratic majority automatically defined the scope of constitutional rights, the very idea of constitutional rights would be meaningless" What do you think democracy attempts to do in the most fundamental way?????? Please elaborate on this question..do you think it is possible to represent 100 percent of the population without destroying democracy. I can think of only way...
The fundamental notion of democracy is the utilitarian concept that if there's a question it ought to be settled by majority rule.
Extra question marks are not helpful or insightful.
It is never possible to represent 100 percent of a population. 51% will have to do absent special circumstances.
The US is not a pure democracy, it is a democratic constitutional republic. The passions of the majority are constrained by the provisions of the constitution. It's not complicated
Is the Constitution written so perfectly that there is absolutely no ambiguity? ( the 10th time Ive asked)
Well, it's the first time you've asked me, Cooke, but the answer is generally of course not. But some questions are more easily answered than others.
Did you have an actual question?
Lets say we discover some new nook or cranny in the Constitution.....Whom do you consult before you write your Amicus Curiae? Which position do you advocate? Do you ask the Supreme Court how it would most likely interpret or do you just interpret it yourself and start writing?
If I am writing an amicus brief it is mainly my own thoughts, influenced by other writings and whether or not I am doing this for an organization with a particular perspective.
Racial segregation was a no brainer.
You'd think so but it wasn't for decades and in fact the framers of the 14th amendment were fine with separate-but-"equal" -- so much for the sanctity of original intent.
Good to see you realize there are areas upon which reasonable people can disagree, though. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/23/2009 10:55:06 PM | Then your game show antics from a previous post are not insightful either. Pot calling the kettle black. But Ill give you an A for effort at trying to be witty.
The ambiguity question is a major one. Who answers those questions, the Supreme Court or the ACLU? If the ACLU is going to enforce the Constitution then it should enforce the Supreme Courts decisions. Sometimes it does this sometimes it doesnt. What happens when a decision has not been rendered? The last time I checked the Constitution does not address rights for non US citizens. Yet the ACLU is fighting for their rights without having ever asked the SC what its position would be. I dont consider that democratic.
The amicus curiae question does not refer to you personally. If you were the ACLU whom would ask first, that is, if preservation of the Constitution and democracy was part of your mission?
I will rephrase the segregation statement; It was a no brainer by a certain time. Its pretty safe to say that the framers understood that there would be change, but not on that day. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/24/2009 7:56:53 AM |
The ambiguity question is a major one. Who answers those questions, the Supreme Court or the ACLU?
What's the question? The Supreme Court decides that.
If the ACLU is going to enforce the Constitution then it should enforce the Supreme Courts decisions.
First, the ACLU doesn't "enforce" anything. They do however defend civil liberties - that is the "CL" in ACLU.
The last time I checked the Constitution does not address rights for non US citizens. Yet the ACLU is fighting for their rights without having ever asked the SC what its position would be.
Again - American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union. They defend the civil liberties of individuals. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/25/2009 8:30:05 AM |
The ambiguity question is a major one. Who answers those questions, the Supreme Court or the ACLU?
Is this a serious question? Of course the courts decide the questions, the ACLU just puts in their two cents.
If the ACLU is going to enforce the Constitution then it should enforce the Supreme Courts decisions. Sometimes it does this sometimes it doesnt. What happens when a decision has not been rendered? The last time I checked the Constitution does not address rights for non US citizens. Yet the ACLU is fighting for their rights without having ever asked the SC what its position would be. I dont consider that democratic.
Read a book.
The amicus curiae question does not refer to you personally. If you were the ACLU whom would ask first, that is, if preservation of the Constitution and democracy was part of your mission?
I would ask myself first, like I did when I declined to represent Doug Hahn.
I will rephrase the segregation statement; It was a no brainer by a certain time.
? The point was that it wasn't a "no brainer" at the time.
Its pretty safe to say that the framers understood that there would be change, but not on that day.
Thanks for the admission. I still don't know what you're talking about. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/27/2009 4:29:20 AM |
Late term abortions are performed all the time and not "only for dire circumastance". A tiny minority of Abortions. If the ACLU is going to enforce the Constitution then it should enforce the Supreme Courts decisions. Sometimes it does this sometimes it doesnt. What happens when a decision has not been rendered? It argues a position and allows the Supreme court to make the discision. Thats how all court challenges work. The last time I checked the Constitution does not address rights for non US citizens. Completely untrue actually. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/27/2009 9:45:14 PM |
The last time I checked the Constitution does not address rights for non US citizens.
If this were true, there'd be a whole lot fewer illegal aliens in the country today. Non-citizens would not be able to sue - and win - when it came to any type of discrimination case. Taxpayers would not have to pay for legal counsel for non-citizens who couldn't afford their own attorneys as they tied up our entire legal system.
At least judging by the interpretations of the Supreme Court. A great deal of of what's attriuted to the ACLU can be laid right at the feet of Presidents who appointed certain justices to life long appointments.
The right attorney in front of the wrong judge(s) can make it a law that white is actually black and send you to jail for insisting otherwise. Go read the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and explain how all the rules relating to church and state stem from one ambiguous sentence. The ACLU is simply expert at working the system, not that I have any love or admiration for them. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/31/2009 12:32:59 AM |
If this were true, there'd be a whole lot fewer illegal aliens in the country today. Non-citizens would not be able to sue - and win - when it came to any type of discrimination case. Taxpayers would not have to pay for legal counsel for non-citizens who couldn't afford their own attorneys as they tied up our entire legal system.
Wait a minute, you think tourists should be able to be detained without trial? Have their possessions ceased? Not have protection under the law?
Got to look beyond the illegal immigrant boogyman. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/31/2009 8:57:51 AM | look at this shame, many have been caught in Canada! With hardcore child porn.
Their getting under a year in prison, mind bottling. That as a civilized Society we allow this to happen.
Not counting all the Priest that have committed this outrageous and despicable
crime all in the name of God! And to add insult to injury the church protects
them from prosecution. Blasphemy! | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/31/2009 3:59:01 PM |
look at this shame, many have been caught in Canada! With hardcore child porn.
Two replies to this.
1. What would this have to do with the ACLU?
2. Really? Is it disproportionate to US child porn consumption?
Their getting under a year in prison, mind bottling. That as a civilized Society we allow this to happen.
1. What does this have to do with the ACLU?
2. Citation?
Not counting all the Priest that have committed this outrageous and despicable
crime all in the name of God! And to add insult to injury the church protects
them from prosecution. Blasphemy!
1. What does this have to do with the ACLU?
2. You're not trying to imply the child molestation by priests is a simply Canadian issue are you? | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/8/2009 5:20:03 PM | The fact that they continually attempt to get child porn legalized leads one to only this conclusion...there are some mighty sick individuals who need to be watched carefully in the ACLU.
The fact they tried to stop the execution of ted Bundy and other serial killers whose guilt was not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but past ALL doubt, shows the farcical nature of the ACLU in toto.
The fact that they REFUSED to assist the two Border officers who were wrongly convicted of shooting a scumbag drug dealer who recently again was arrested trying to cross the border with massive amounts of drugs shows their real purpose...But guess what, they're representing the DRUG DEALER AGAIN!!
the ACLU has gone from a beneficial agency to one that promotes the WORST sides of human nature..and as such should be disbanded as a criminal danger to society. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/9/2009 5:31:53 PM |
The fact that they REFUSED to assist the two Border officers
Do you have a link?
The fact they tried to stop the execution of ted Bundy and other serial killers whose guilt was not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but past ALL doubt, shows the farcical nature of the ACLU in toto.
The ACLU is against all Capital Punishment.
Unlike ........Focus on the Family, and the Dobson attempt to stop the Bundy exacution.
Dobson knew Ted was misguided by Pornography. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/10/2009 12:22:56 AM |
The fact that they continually attempt to get child porn legalized leads one to only this conclusion...there are some mighty sick individuals who need to be watched carefully in the ACLU.
Really? Are you sure that there isn't some context in here that you're intentionally not looking at? Have they ever defended the production of child pornography for instance?
The fact they tried to stop the execution of ted Bundy and other serial killers whose guilt was not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but past ALL doubt, shows the farcical nature of the ACLU in toto.
Are you sure you know what "farcical" means?
The fact that they REFUSED to assist the two Border officers who were wrongly convicted of shooting a scumbag drug dealer who recently again was arrested trying to cross the border with massive amounts of drugs shows their real purpose...But guess what, they're representing the DRUG DEALER AGAIN!!
Maybe you should put a link, because this run on sentences doesn't really tell us anything now does it?
the ACLU has gone from a beneficial agency to one that promotes the WORST sides of human nature..and as such should be disbanded as a criminal danger to society.
What free speech and they're no pro execution. Thats really the worst sides of human nature? | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/10/2009 10:09:05 AM | | The two co-founders of the American Civil Liberties Union are Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastwood, both confessed socialists. Roger Baldwin was on the record of over 100 Communist front affiliations. | |
|
Home
login 
