DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
It is hilarious watching the right wingers freak out when the truth is told.
As further proof that the tea parties don't really believe what they claim I invite everyone to investigate the "Send Christmas cards to the ACLU" plan that was intended to negatively affect the ACLUI's operations. Now why would a grass roots movement that is all about restoring the US to constitutional governance what to disrupot the activities of an organization that has defended the Constitution for 90 years?
Except for those parts of the Constitution that they don't agree with... like the 2nd Amendment. They say as much in their own policies... or for parties that they disagree with like Pro Life protesters, or even their own board members speaking out.
Other than that, yep the ACLU is for protecting the constitutional rights or groups like NAMBLA, folks that favor child porn, etc... They are simply an organization that defends the Constitution.
How many lawsuits has the ACLU threatened to file or filed against various towns, counties, and other municipalities over Christmas related things? How much do you think their actions have negatively affected those organizations operations? I think the answer to your question is quite obvious, whoever was behind the Christmas card plan was exercising their 1st Amendment rights and wishing the ACLU a Merry Christmas. You know the whole turn the other cheek, and love your neighbor kind of thing. Pretty funny if you ask me.
You're so full of shit it's almost funny.
The ACLU threatens lawsuits over religious displays because they are unconstitutional unless they fall within very strict guidelines. As a non christian I am quite happy that less of my tax money is being misused to provide support for christians.
As to the supposed partisan pattern at the ACLU, you specifically mention not defending anti abortion activists. You lied.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/iowa-civil-liberties-union-defends-right-students-wear-anti-abortion-t-shirts
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-sues-protect-free-speech-rights-anti-abortion-church-group-indiana
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wyso/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1610224/WYSO.Local.News/ACLU.Defends.Anti-Abortion.Dispute
Who said anything about a partisan pattern?
How is the display of a privately owned religious display on public grounds unconstitutional? Or a coach saying a prayer with his team? I have no issue with displays for Kwanza, Ishtar, either of the soltices, or any secular holiday being placed on public property so that private citizens can express their own speech. Why does it bother you?
There are plenty of examples of pro-life protestors being arrested or abused for peaceful demonstrations, and the ACLU has refused to take up the cases because in many cases they are already representing the abortion clinic. You know a corporation and its free speech, over the rights of people.
When I get home in the morning I will provide some interesting cites from their own policies, and some case cites if desired.
If they were aklready representing or had ever represented another party in a dispute it would be a clear violation of the canon of ethics for them to represent the protesters. So you're finding them to be in the wrong for not taking action that would get the lawyers involved disbarred? That's just pathetic.
You got busted telling lies. You should stop while you're ahead.
First you claim that I lied because of some perceived (by you) partisan pattern, then when showed why or how they get around defending the 1st Amendment for a particular set of people you claim that I lied again. I further see that you avoided the points I made about displays, you just dismissed those as me being full of shit. Excellent debating with you Ken. There are enough quotes from ACLU leadership over the years stating that they preemptively contact a particular side so that they won't be able to take the case of particular groups. Your example of a t-shirt at school is completely different than protestors. Where are they with all of these kids being kicked out of school for drawings of guns or toy guns that go with their action figures?
Portraying the ACLU as the defender of the Constitution without their own agenda, is at best naive. I will not deny that the ACLU has done some very good things towards fighting for individual freedoms, I am simply stating that they have adopted a left leaning agenda. If I were going for the emotional path of being anti ACLU I would have mentioned the numerous attacks on veteran memorials...
So do you think that a perceived conflict of interest (because of previous cases or clients) should keep a lawyer from taking on cases in the future?
Psst... your secularism is a religion as well, the SCOTUS has stated as much.
Do you not know why I'm maintaining the quotes? In case you're too clueless to guess, it was to maintain an unedited all in one proof that you lied.
You claimed
quote:
Except for those parts of the Constitution that they don't agree with... like the 2nd Amendment. They say as much in their own policies... or for parties that they disagree with like Pro Life protesters, or even their own board members speaking out.
I then proved that they have represented anti abortionists and won the cases. Which proves you didn't tell the truth.
Now you had the gall to lie again.
Your claim
quote:
There are plenty of examples of pro-life protestors being arrested or abused for peaceful demonstrations, and the ACLU has refused to take up the cases because in many cases they are already representing the abortion clinic.
My reply
quote:
If they were aklready representing or had ever represented another party in a dispute it would be a clear violation of the canon of ethics for them to represent the protesters.
Then you claim this
quote:
So do you think that a perceived conflict of interest (because of previous cases or clients) should keep a lawyer from taking on cases in the future?
There is not perceived conflict in the situation as you described it. There is a clear conflict that is well understood to be the case. It's the exact same reason you can't hire a lawyer from the same firm as the one your spouse hired during a divorce.
I get that the right wing doesn't like the ACLU because they are better citizens and more patriotic than the vast majority of the right wing but that doesn't give you a license to lie about them.
|
RE: Tea Partiers and the United States of White Christi... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread