ACLU and "conservative" causes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DasBoot

Moderator
I posed this question in another thread , but no one answered it.
Perhaps because there is no answer.;)

To all ACLU members/supporters,
Enlighten me/us, will you?
Give me a short list of recent/past cases where the ACLU has fought FOR something that would NOT be considered a "liberal" cause?
A case where the ACLU litigated IN FAVOR of something along the lines of national security.
Or for the right of an employer NOT to hire a "minority" because they had facial piercings or something.
How about defending a police officer NOT in an "alleged " discrimination" case.
Against a perp maybe.
You get the picture.
Didn't the ACLU recently win an upstate NY case where moslem prayers could be sent blasted from speakers with the approval of the city council?
On the grounds that the prayers were the same as church bells?
I may have it wrong.
Anyway, I'm sure if we could read about all of the heretofore unheralded "conservative" court battles the ACLU has won, it just might get some new members.
 
Check on cases where both the NRA and ACLU were on the briefs about infringment of civil liberties.

Of course, that might negate the 'liberal' tantrum. The ACLU also defended free speech rights of Nazis. Is that 'conservative' enough?

The ACLU's great weak spot is the 2nd Amend. However, if they defend Nazis and Muslims with a legitimate case, that might offend some but they don't understand liberty.

If the Muslim call to prayer was equivalently obnoxious as church bells, then both should be stopped as nuisances or both supported. If the implication was the Christian noise is somehow acceptable to the state but Muslim noise is not - assuming equal annoyance - then the author of that proposition needs to rething their view of liberty and understand that they are not for freedom but just an authoritarian culture based on their tribal values. Of course, if they get to infringe liberty but play with a gun - that makes it all OK.
 
I've got plenty more...

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/23445prs20060112.html
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
http://www.aclu.org/police/forfeit/14597prs20000323.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/commercial/10915prs20011113.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/commercial/11175prs20030423.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/cfr/11261prs20050606.html

This is just a quick review of what's going on today. It doesn't cover historical high-profile cases such as Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy, Ollie North's 5th Amdt rights, Westover Baptist Churchs' right to "hate speech" as the liberals call it, etc.
Feel free to pare this down into whatever you consider to be a 'short' list.

Perhaps you misunderstand what the ACLU is about: combatting abuses of authority. You specifically requested examples where the ACLU would be working against people/ groups with no authority to abuse (such as a "perp"). Sorry, can't help ya there.

It is absolutely true that the ACLU finds itself on the liberal side of most cases. The fact that it's not *all* cases shows that the ACLU is not partisan. The common factor among every case the ACLU takes on is that somebody in a position of authority is doing something illegal or unconstitutional.
Since their motivation is not political, but procedural....then that means too many Conservatives (such as yourself ;)) are on the wrong side of the Constitution. Why is that? :confused:

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to "get some new members". Anyone interested in joining, don't forget your pro-2nd friends 'cuz the ACLU isn't into that.
 
And I am anxious to peruse the links that have been made available.
GS,
While we obviously have opposing views in assorted arenas, I do not fall in lockstep with ANYONE or ANY particular group.
I must say I was pleasantly SHOCKED:eek: when you said you were in favor of a border fence.
So neither of us is blindly bound to right/left ideology.:)
Conservatives (such as yourself )
Click to expand...
If I had to choose a "label", I guess it would have to be that one.
Only because of the harm so many "liberal" policies have inflicted on both individuals and society at large.
But show me a "liberal/Democrat that is STRONG on national defense and STRONG on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, he/she just might get my vote.
It is absolutely true that the ACLU finds itself on the liberal side of most cases.
Click to expand...
Hence the magnitude of invective heaped upon it.
their motivation is not political, but procedural
Click to expand...
I find that hard to believe! (See 2 quotes back.)
But I never looked at it that way before, so I will keep that in mind when analyzing the various court cases.
A new era of detente may be at hand!:)
 
After reading the ACLU court cases, I must admit that my hardline against them has softened.......just a bit!:o
I'm not ready to become a member, but my eyes have been opened just a bit.
I am surprised to see that I agree with them:barf: on most of the cases presented.
Regarding the Rhode Island airport/Corrections Officers case: Isn't the airport private property?
If it is, don't they have the right to decide what adverts/signage/etc may or may not be displayed?
I'm gonna have to read more.
But thanks for this new info.:cool:
 
moi said:
Someone here asked a very poignant question...is the ACLU a bad organization because it defends all but one right yet the NRA is a good organization because it only defends one right?
Click to expand...
^ does this not pique anyone's curiosity?
 
I would rather live in a nation where an organization like the ACLU is freely allowed than a nation where such an organization would not be allowed or outlawed. Freedom isnt free, it means that other people have the right to put forth ideas that you may not like or agree with. That is part of the price you pay for living in a free society. If you are not capable of allowing other folks to have ideas you do not like or think they should be silenced then you are only going down a path that will lead to the loss of those freedoms for all. There are some ideas I dont like or disagree with. However, I would still defend thier right to be heard. That is what freedom is about.
 
There is something else to think about. If the majority of the Circuits or the SCOTUS itself, ever came down on the side of individual rights and the 2A, you would find the ACLU changing its stance on the 2A issue.

It won't do so now, because the majority of the Circuits have ruled that the 2A provides no individual civil right. Certainly the SCOTUS has not ruled that it does...

However, the ACLU has been instrumental in enhancing and preserving many of those liberties we often take for granted. This is no small feat, in and of itself.
 
If the majority of the Circuits or the SCOTUS itself, ever came down on the side of individual rights and the 2A, you would find the ACLU changing its stance on the 2A issue.
Click to expand...
That appears to be circular logic - the ACLU would stand up for our 2A rights if the courts reach a concensus protecting our 2A and the ACLU was no longer needed to protect our 2A rights.
 
Mannlicher...

Geocities? Come on, ANYONE can build a site with Geocities, something a bit more credible please? If the ACLU was about debasing American ideals, then I guess ideas like equality of race and sex are communist to you. Does homosexuality also count as communist? Should we go back to the days when women were chattel, Jim Crow laws were good, and anyone who doesn't believe in the majority's religion is a heathen?


Epyon

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU
 
gc70: At first glance, yes it does appear to be circular reasoning. However...

The SCOTUS has never "incorporated" the second into the 14th. That alone puts a block on what the ACLU may consider a civil right. Secondly, the Circuits, as of right now, overwhelmingly reject the standard model of the second and cling to the collective model, hence, once again, no civil right is involved.

In the history of the ACLU most, if not all, civil rights the ACLU defends, were already incoporated (I admit to being somewhat fuzzy on the actual history).

Such is the political world we live in, that in order to change the operational methods of the ACLU, we first have to change the Courts. Regardless upon how much restriction that Courts may hold as Constitutional, only if the Courts recognize the standard model will the ACLU accept to operate and help rescind restrictions. Literally, they (ACLU) will only come if they are dragged, kicking and screaming.

Epyon: Despite the seeming casual reliance on the wiki, it is exactly worth what you paid for. It is not definitive, by any means.
 
Antipitas...

Never knew wikipedia wasn't considered a credible source, thanks for the reference for future use.


Epyon
 
Antipitas: You present an interesting perspective that I had not considered. If I understand you view, the ACLU only defends rights incorporated into the 14th. My interpretation of that would be that the ACLU is not concerned with Constitutional rights unless they can be used to extinguish state diversity and enforce conformity to national/federal standards.
 
There is something else to think about. If the majority of the Circuits or the SCOTUS itself, ever came down on the side of individual rights and the 2A, you would find the ACLU changing its stance on the 2A issue.

It won't do so now, because the majority of the Circuits have ruled that the 2A provides no individual civil right. Certainly the SCOTUS has not ruled that it does...

However, the ACLU has been instrumental in enhancing and preserving many of those liberties we often take for granted. This is no small feat, in and of itself.
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity, why will they not put any pressure on the courts to rule that it's an individual right? They seem to be able and willing to pressure for other items on their agenda.





IMO which don't mean jack, it doesn't fit into their liberal left wing agenda. I could be wrong, but they haven't shown otherwise. Are they only capable of defending rights that are easily explained to their left wing benifactors?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top