Democrats & Liberals: Archives

For decades I’ve struggled to understand how the ACLU can be so hated. If there is anything more American than defending the Bill of Rights, I don’t know what it is.

But it’s finally come home to me that Americans, on the whole, do not believe in the Bill of Rights. If it was put up to a vote today, it would never pass.

And the true irony is that those who are most vociferous in expressing their “patriotism” are those least likely to support our actual freedoms.

Thanks, William.

Synonymous-

In response to your question, a hundred different lawyer jokes come to mind…

Well said, William. Situations such as this really outline the strong principles of the ACLU, they aren’t so petty as to turn their back on their own ideals because of personal distaste. Hopefully this breaks some memes among Republicans.

Way to go, William!
Hooray for the ACLU!

Been a card carrying member for a number of years now. They have taken positions I personally don’t agree with, but then, they were positions taken not to please me, but, to protect my way of life under the Bill of Rights. Hence, they continue to get my annual membership fee. The ACLU is indispensible to freedom in America. Power corrupts and the powerful do in fact try to take power away from the people unto themselves. The ACLU stands as the David to the Goliath of powerful government and wealthy interest groups. Long live, the ACLU.

I don’t hate the ACLU and I believe they do what they think is correct. I disagree often with their goals. The ACLU seeks consistently to expand the sphere of rights defined by the Constitution. How can I be against such a thing? Because the ACLU has moved from defending rights to be free from the government to defending rights to make the government (and private individuals) do something. This is a zero sum game. Beyond that and in this case they are pushing too many rights for defendants. The Bill of Rights is very short. You can read it in a couple of minutes. It is designed to protect the innocent. It is not meant to provide a level playing field between the guilty and authorities. In America, we err on the side to the defendant, which means it is much more likely that a guilty man goes free. This is the price we pay for our freedoms and I think it is a price worth paying. But there is a limit to it because sometimes there is a direct tradeoff. A child’s right to life outweighs a child molester’s right to privacy.

In Rush’s case, it is stretching the right to privacy. I would not have a problem with the government using the evidence of the medical records and I am not interested in extending the right of privacy to make it possible to cover up even more crimes. Although I also believe it is a politically motivated case. That is the part I would worry about.

“Because the ACLU has moved from defending rights to be free from the government to defending rights to make the government (and private individuals) do something.”

Rush’s case doesn’t seem to be an example of this, Jack - did you have some in mind?

Jack, the innocence violated of a child is no more heinous than the innocence violated of an adult when an innocent adult is convicted. The gray area you identified, that of a convicted child molester is a case where you would have one set of laws for those never convicted and another set for those with previous convictions. Would you really want to walk down that path of separate and different laws for different classes of people? And would that not violate one of the underlying principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they exist today?

In practice, it would result in the apprehension and conviction of ex-criminals for no other reason than they have a record and prosecution will be easier than that against someone with no record.

I agree with “Synonymous” that the majority would vote down the Bill of Rights. Being from Kansas, where 70% of our good God fearing bigots recently voted not only to make same sex marriage but civil unions illegal and in the state constitution, Kansas has a state law defining marriage as one man and one woman.

Kansas has been a “red” state since forever and now that the lunatic ultra right churches control the state Republican party it is just natural that they flex their political muscle. They rant from their bully pulpits about the evils of the ACLU and anything liberal. After the final vote in the state legislature placed the “Defence of Marriage” ammendment of our April ballet a minister proclaimed that,”the minority voice has been silenced by the majority.”

A local rev. has publically proclaimed that gambling and teaching of evolulation would be next on his “do do list.” He and “his merry band of bigots” scare the hell out of me.

Thank to the ACLU, these people would put an off and on switch on the Constitution of the United States. The constitution could be turned off when it defends those people that they hate and back on when it is for them. I believe it was Ben Franklin who warned that when one person looses his rights under the constitution, that we all loose.

I have never been a member of the ACLU, but I am going to join. We all should have a refresher course in U.S. history and constitution. Thank you, Mr. Brown, retired teacher of McPherson High School, for teaching me the value of the constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

Good work A.C.L.U. May you be around another 100 years.

Excellent article, William.

Steven

I mentioned that the Rush case doesn’t fit the expanded positive rights.

Let me first be clear. Some of the things the ACLU is fighting for, I consider good things too. But they are not rights that should be enforced.

I wanted answer your question and to find some particular cases so, I looked at the ACLU site (http://www.aclu.org) I find almost everything on that page questionable. Let me tick them off two of the prima facie cases:

They oppose a mandate that government-issued photo identification must be presented in order for citizens to cast their ballots. It seems to me reasonable to ask for identification. Any citizen can obtain a photo ID.

ACLU says of Abu Ghraib that top military officials still have not been held accountable for widespread torture of detainees. Maybe they weren’t guilty. This is politics pure and simple.

There are also various ADA cases listed on the inside pages. Reasonable accommodation is being stretched too far. Each of the cases pulls at the heartstrings. All together they make bad law.

David

I don’t propose convicting the innocent. It is a matter of setting the tolerance level. We live in an imperfect world. We set the burden of proof very high, as we should. We need to keep in mind that we are trying to protect the innocent not trying to protect the guilty.

We should still set the burden of proof high at trial, but it makes sense to suspect those who have shown propensity to commit a crime. If a child disappears near the home of a known child molester, it makes sense to check this guy out first if you have no clear suspects. If he is innocent, he may be inconvenience. If he is guilty, we may save the child’s life. It is no contest for me. It would be unlikely that children would disappear often around this guy’s house from random chance.

Think of this recent case in Florida.

Why doubt in your rhetoric what you know to be true in your heart?

Why doubt in your rhetoric what you know to be true in your heart?

Sorry, that didn’t pass the chortle test.

Think of this recent case in Florida.

I think you need to repost something.

As you’ve already been given perfect examples in this comment thread, those making selective, partisan indictments against the ACLU are less likely to note or address the law or precedent the organization bases its legal actions upon.

Couple that with most Americans’ ignorance and indifference, and the hateful, vile rhetoric and lies of Bill O’Reilly against the ACLU are allowed to fester unchallenged, another wedge issue for the Conservative Right to exploit.

Knowing that the ACLU has already defended Nazis, Klansman, homophobic hate killers and Rush Limbaugh, no truer test of a citizen’s belief in democracy is whether a Saddam or Bin Laden should ever be guaranteed a right to counsel if ever tried in America.

If youall really think the American Communist Lawyers Union is out to protect the Bill of Rights or the Constitution I have Atlantic Ocean front property in Arizona I’ll sell you REAL cheap.

Ron and Jack,

The two of you are the only one’s in the room with any common sense. I noticed the ACLU’s recent decision to send some legal aid in NAMBLA’s direction has been completely absent in this discussion as well. Let?s do all we can to protect an organization who advocates molesting young boys. Great idea. Give me a break!

I’m guessing this will earn me a, “this post has been removed by the blog administrator”, but maybe it’ll get a read or 2 first.

I noticed the ACLU’s recent decision to send some legal aid in NAMBLA’s direction has been completely absent in this discussion as well.

Yes, the ACLU defends the free speech rights of people that most (and in this case themselves I’m sure) find morally repugnant.

I don’t like NAMBLA anymore than you do, it seems to me that there is an important free speech principle here: if you don’t like the law, you are free to ask the government to change it. Yes, it’s really disgusting that the law in this case has to do with adults having sex with children, but the principle is the same.

ACLU says of Abu Ghraib that top military officials still have not been held accountable for widespread torture of detainees. Maybe they weren’t guilty. This is politics pure and simple.

Politics? The job of the ACLU is to protect people from the government, which in this case is represented by the top brass. If you could show that the ACLU rolled over and played dead during the Clinton years you might have an argument, but I am pretty sure they stayed on the case.

Woody, Woody, Woody,

Put the Kool-Aid down and wake up, man. (O’Reilly quote thrown in for Bert’s benefit) First off, I thought the “A” in ACLU was supposed to stand for American. To the best of my knowledge there are no Americans incarcerated at Abu-Gharib prison. Second, the ACLU would have us believe all the allegations into prisoner abuse, murder etc have been proven and we should start putting commanding officers in the brig immediately. I guess they don’t care about the civil rights of those in our own military (ie right to a fair trial etc)

Put the Kool-Aid down and wake up, man… First off, I thought the “A” in ACLU was supposed to stand for American. To the best of my knowledge there are no Americans incarcerated at Abu-Gharib prison. Second, the ACLU would have us believe all the allegations into prisoner abuse, murder etc have been proven and we should start putting commanding officers in the brig immediately.

I prefer coffee, thanks. I can’t that you are still talking about allegations of abuse and murder. The military acknowledged long, long ago that there was abuse and murder. Perhaps you’ve heard of Charles Graner?

They aren’t asking for anyone to be thrown in the brig, at least without a trial. Their argument as I understand, is that that we shouldn’t go only after the little people and let the big people off the hook.

As for protecting people who aren’t American citizens, I don’t think the ACLU needs to apologize for that.

Let me first be clear. Some of the things the ACLU is fighting for, I consider good things too. But they are not rights that should be enforced.

That’s for a judge to decide. The ACLU is an advocate. It has a consistent position (if they were really just “liberals” they sure wouldn’t be defending Rush Limbaugh”) and goes into court advocating for legal opinions consistent with that position. The ACLU (or any advocacy organization) only can have an effect when judges agree that its interpretation of the law is correct. I say “judges” rather than “judge” because any high-profile rights case will be appealed, often all the way to the Supreme Court, which is hardly a bastion of liberalism.

If the ACLU (or anyone) takes a position and loses, then there’s no harm done. If they take a position and win, then they were right about the law. I don’t see how any reasonable person could find this offensive. IT’s how our legal system is designed to work.

Look, I’m for civil rights as much as anyone. America is a great nation. The Bill of Rights is a huge part of said greatness. However, to have a organization which was founded by a self proclaimed communist be charged with the duty of watchdogging our rights is not the way to go.

I don’t know whether what you’re saying is true or not, but what possible relevance could the founder’s economic philosophy have to enforcing the bill of rights?

I’d say it would be pretty relevant if they enforce our rights until the nation as we know it ceases to exist which was Baldwin’s goal from day 1. Research is a beautiful thing.

Synonymous,

I’m sure Mike doesn’t drive a VW because it was founded by the Nazis.

He doesn’t eat corn flakes because John Harvey Kellogg was a fervent Seventh Day Adventist (assuming Mike’s not a Seventh Day Adventist) and a doctor with odd ideas about “intestinal flora.”

Mike, of course, doesn’t eat Graham Crackers because they were invented by a man who believed unhealthy diet led to sexual excess.

For more of this nonsensical argument, check out the other thread on the ACLU.

That’s ridiculous. Enforcing our rights is the reason the nation “as we know it” exists. Perhaps you should research a little more about the founders and their thoughts on government and individual liberty. I believe you’ll find that they felt rather strongly about the subject.

However, to have a organization which was founded by a self proclaimed communist be charged with the duty of watchdogging our rights is not the way to go.

Mike,

You should learn about the genetic fallacy. Just because the ACLU was founded by a Communist does not make it a Communist organization. That statement may seem ludicruous at first sight, but consider similar examples. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Does this mean that the founding of the United States was an insidious plot to get people to stop believing in Jesus? Most of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Does this make the current US goverment pro-slavery?

Lawn boy,

I don’t own a VW because the one I did own was a piece of junk. I only use corn flakes to bread the occasional fish I murder before throwning it in the frying pan. I utilize graham crackers to make smores on nearly every family camping trip. The Second Ammendment concept was in fact going to be my next point. The ACLU doesn’t seem too keen on protecting this little part of the bill of rights does it?

Interesting debate folks. Now I’m off to further my own personal wealth, much to the chagrine, I’m sure, of Roger Baldwins everywhere.

The 2nd Amendment already has quite enough support, it seems. And if the ACLU brought lawsuits seeking to enforce it, you’d have to question whether gun ownership is part of a communist plot. Do you really want that?

Woody,
Sense when is molesting children free speech?

Molesting children isn’t free speech. Talking about it is.

If you want to live in a country where the government decides whose speech is protected by law and whose isn’t, you picked the wrong one. I hear they have some lovely real estate available in Iran.

No problems there with “activist judges,” either.

ACLU and NAMBLA is certainly the most extreme case of a repugnant defendant. On the one hand, NAMBLA’s web site was, according to reports I’ve read, seeking political changes - just the kind of speech that’s most important to protect. On the other hand, yuck.

A quite reasonable conservative discussion of the case is here: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

Murdoch doesn’t like the ACLU’s stance here much either, but he does start out the story like this:

An old friend of mine once said this about the American Civil Liberties Union: “They’re a bunch of whale-saving, criminal-loving pinkos - and thank God for them.” This remark nicely summarizes the ambivalence with which many people regard the ACLU….There seems to be no thug too hardened nor any cause too exotic for the ACLU to champion. At the same time, if America ever were unlucky enough to face a president who decided to remain in the Oval Office past her expiration date, the ACLU would battle her and her junta with every sharp courtroom argument, pointed legal filing, and well-aimed briefcase it could muster.

As the pendulum of America swings right and left, sometimes moderation requires supporting the those radicals that are pushing as hard as they can against the current tide (mixing a metaphor or two). So that’s why I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

However, to have a organization which was founded by a self proclaimed communist be charged with the duty of watchdogging our rights is not the way to go.
Mike -
Should we refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance because it was written by a Socialist?

Wow. I didn’t know the Pledge was written by a Socialist. Here’s a history of the pledge with the story.

Thank you William. Murdock wrote a very good piece. He conveys everything I try to on the subject but with much more eloquence than this redneck can muster.

About Bill O’Reilly and the ACLU:

This month for example, Bill blasted the ACLU for its support of the Florida judiciary in its recent finding in the Schiavo case. But isn’t this the same Florida court system that O’Reilly not so long ago was gushing over, praising its decision that helped Bush ballots outnumber Gore’s ballots in the 2000 election?

It seems that O’Reilly — and I hope not too many other Americans — approves of judicial review only if/when the court decides the way he would like it to decide.

Like too many organizations that gain prominence and power, the ACLU has become a runaway freight train. It started out doing good, and may still so, but it roars on through all the stops forgetting to observe the safety rules. You know what they say about good intentions. It needs to be challenged from time to time. It is not a pure thing, people.

About O’Reilly and NAMBLA:

You do not have to agree with a single word that the admittedly repugnant North American Man Boy Love Association professes, in order nonetheless to defend its constitutional right to express it.

In America, you can hate the speaker and hate what he speaks, without denying his freedom to speak it.

Unlike most Americans, O’Reilly — and I hope not too many other Americans —seems to believe in the Constitution’s freedom of speech only if/when he happens to personally approve of the chapter and verse of the speech.

forgetting to observe the safety rules.

What “safety rules” are there on enforcing the law? Are you saying the Bill of Rights is dangerous?

I wonder why Conservatives hate America so much?

Synonymous

Do you really, really think the ACLU has never, ever, overstepped? Nobody, repeat, nobody, gets carte blanche. Interpreting the law is frequently open to debate. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need lawyers, judges, and the whole justice system.

Hate America? We don’t hate America. Speaking for myself, I hate the fact that every day people take less and less responsibility for their own actions. The ACLU helps perpetuate this.

I think Dee hit the nail on the head by saying the ACLU is a classic example of a good idea gone terribly afoul. Our rights as citizens need to be protected but we need to “86” this outfit and try again.

Do you really, really think the ACLU has never, ever, overstepped? Nobody, repeat, nobody, gets carte blanche. Interpreting the law is frequently open to debate. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need lawyers, judges, and the whole justice system.

See, it doesn’t MATTER if the ACLU has ever “overstepped,” precisely because we DO have lawyers, judges, and the whole justice system. The ACLU consists of advocates. If the position they advocate is incorrect, then judges turn them down. It is impossible for the ACLU to do any damage. They only get what they want when they are right about the law.

If they are wrong- they lose. If they are right, then your argument should be with the law, not with the ACLU.

And, as for Conservatives hating America, it certainly seems that they do hate most of the principals that this country was founded on.

While all this feel-good-love-the-ACLU-back-slapping is fine and dandy with me, the Republican Party is working 24/7 to make sure its agenda is set in stone ad infinitum. Did all you editors miss this from the April 30, 2005 LA Times?

“At workshops, Republican leaders, staff members from the White House political office and campaign strategists offered slide presentations hammering home the importance of four priorities to assure long-term success: outreach to minorities and other new GOP voters, exploiting new computer technology to identify and communicate with voters, setting new voter registration goals and mapping more ambitious get-out-the-vote operations.

The party, which registered 3.4 million new voters over the past four years, now aims to register an additional 4 million before the 2008 presidential election — including 1.5 million before next year’s midterms..

“We’re in full-time campaign mode,” said Carole Jean Jordan, chairwoman of the Florida Republican Party.

We need to to talk about taking action, not credit. Or perhaps we should borrow one of Nero’s violins?

The ACLU doesn’t get turned down when it has the hammer called lots of money. Law suits are settled quite often without a fight because of the cost.

Then there is this:

LA logo and the cross. Was that the law? Or was that someone’s interpretation? Why didn’t the city fight it? I’m not talking separation of church and state. I’m talking interpretation, political correctness, gutlessness. You name it,
but not the “law”.

You are naive thinking as you do.

My comments at May 2, 2005, 09:42AM were directed at Synonymous and his May 1st comment.

More Conservative persecution syndrome, as though the ACLU has unlimited funds and poor defenseless god-loving citizens are broke and helpless.

Lawsuits are also settled because one of the parties knows it’s going to lose. Local governments consistently violate established Constitutional principals, either knowingly or without even thinking about it. Once they are contacted by the ACLU and finally speak to their own lawyers, they realize their positions are untenable.

“If the ACLU (or anyone) takes a position and loses, then there’s no harm done. If they take a position and win, then they were right about the law.”

That might be true if people really were just seeking after truth. But even in that case, having to spend thousands of dollars to defend yourself in court just to prove you were not guilty is not exactly nothing. But lawsuits are rarely so benign.

They are often used as an offensive weapon, both as a shakedown and as a way to change politics through the courts in a way that cannot be done through persuasion or democratic legislatures.

Imagine yourself in the position of a small town mayor. The whole budget of your town is a couple hundred thousand dollars. The some disgruntled citizen comes to you. He has the backing of the ACLU. You are convinced he has no case, but you are equally convinced that you can’t afford to hire lawyers to prove that. So you settle. Score one for intimidation. The ACLU wisely picks off its opponents one at a time, so none of them have enough power or money to resist.

What you say is true that one party settles because he thinks he will lose, but the calculation is not only lose the verdict. You could well win the verdict and lose in the sense that you have to pay a lot more than the proposed settlement. Without lawyers involved, they usually call that extortion.

Please look up extortion.
Long live the ACLU. We need you. We love you.
I find Rush to be more repugnant than just about anyone, but he has the same rights as me (much to his chagrin I’m sure).

Left

I know what the word means and have used it properly.

There’s nothing like being ignored to know you are totally on the right track. So far it looks like there is a quintet playing…..

Synonymous, you are still naive, but it is good to have more than one viewpoint. Nothing more boring than preaching to the choir.