WCSox Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 My apologies is somebody posted this earlier. It's unfortunate that the ACLU wastes our time and money with idiotic crap like this... Witness Rights The ACLU is suing to stop California from executing inmates using lethal injection, not to protect the inmates, but claiming instead that the executions violates the first amendment rights of execution witnesses. The ACLU argues that a drug administered to paralyze inmates during the procedure is designed merely to sanitize the execution and prevent witnesses from seeing convulsions, saying the practice, "makes it impossible for witnesses to determine whether death row inmates in California are being subjected to substantial and unnecessary pain before dying." But California's attorney general says it's a necessary part of the process — effectively stopping the inmate from breathing http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187388,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 It'll be thrown out. It's not necessary for witnesses to determine whether or not criminals are expressing pain during executions. Is this guaranteed under the first amendment? Maybe I've missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 There should be penalties for groups or individuals who tie up the courts with nonsense like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Who said the pain was unnecessary anyway? I hope they experience hell-on-earth before they leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) There should be penalties for groups or individuals who tie up the courts with nonsense like this. This is yet another piece of evidence supporting my claim that the ACLU is more interested in promoting an ultra left-wing political agenda than protecting the civil liberties of individuals. And it's a damn shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 07:01 PM) This is yet another piece of evidence supporting my claim that the ACLU is more interested in promoting an ultra left-wing political agenda than protecting the civil liberties of individuals. And it's a damn shame. By representing an individual who has a concern about his civil liberties? Ummm ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 12:01 AM) This is yet another piece of evidence supporting my claim that the ACLU is more interested in promoting an ultra left-wing political agenda than protecting the civil liberties of individuals. And it's a damn shame. believe what you want but they come to the aid of EVERYONE no matter who if they feel their rights have been stomped on. And you know what? it creates precedent and helps us legally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) By representing an individual who has a concern about his civil liberties? Ummm ok. QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 09:47 PM) believe what you want but they come to the aid of EVERYONE no matter who if they feel their rights have been stomped on. And you know what? it creates precedent and helps us legally... Read the first post and tell me what that has to do with civil liberties. How does this "legal precedent" help us? I'm glad that we have an ACLU, but they're doing an absolutely wretched job of choosing their cases. This is a prime example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach61 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 06:01 PM) This is yet another piece of evidence supporting my claim that the ACLU is more interested in promoting an ultra left-wing political agenda than protecting the civil liberties of individuals. And it's a damn shame. Didn't they support Rush Limbaugh during his drug phase? Whether or not you like Rush, his rights were being stepped on and the ACLU was right there to stand up for him. I think a lot of thought was put into the 8th amendment to prevent us from reacting to another persons crime. In a lot of cases I think the person should have a long painful death, but then my human side gets in the way and tells me not to stoop to their level. If these convulsions are just muscle reflexes, then it's no big deal to me. But if those convulsions are actually pain, then I have to agree that we find another way to execute them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) Didn't they support Rush Limbaugh during his drug phase? Sure, but at least Rush had a legitimate case (the DA illegally accessing his medical records). The ACLU doesn't have ANY case here. This is a frivilous lawsuit that will get thrown out of any court immediately. And the ACLU knows this, but doesn't care. They have no concerns over tying up our court system with a frivilous case. And guess who will pay the legal fees for this lawsuit: the taxpayers! Edited March 15, 2006 by WCSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach61 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 05:41 PM) Sure, but at least Rush had a legitimate case (the DA illegally accessing his medical records). The ACLU doesn't have ANY case here. This is a frivilous lawsuit that will get thrown out of any court immediately. And the ACLU knows this, but doesn't care. They have no concerns over tying up our court system with a frivilous case. And guess who will pay the legal fees for this lawsuit: the taxpayers! Right, but my point was that the ACLU isn't just promoting an ultra left wing political agenda that you said. They do protect civil liberties of people. Even the ultra right wing conservative Rush Limbaugh. Rush had a case and the ACLU fought for his civil liberties. They might not always pick the right cases, but we need a group like them. Who else stepped in for Rush during that time? I'm not searching to try to see if Hannity filed anything with the courts or if Dubya had anything filed with the courts, but I remember the ACLU filing something with the courts to protect Rush's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) Right, but my point was that the ACLU isn't just promoting an ultra left wing political agenda that you said. They do protect civil liberties of people. You''re absolutely right. They do protect American citizens in need and that's a good thing. HOWEVER, they only do so when their cases fit the ACLU's liberal agenda. How often do you see the ACLU going out of their way to protect the civil liberties of child rape victims? Nevermind the fact that child rapists have gotten off with laughably-short sentences, the ACLU isn't interested in being tough on crime - that's a conservative agenda. But they'll represent NAMBLA (free speech - high proirity for liberals) pro bono at the drop of a hat. Even the ultra right wing conservative Rush Limbaugh. The ACLU aided Rush because HIS CASE FIT THEIR AGENDA: The district attorney in Florida accessed Rush's medical records in an apparently illegal manner. The ACLU's client in this case many not have been a liberal, but the principle at hand (illegal search) is one that's protected by liberals much more often than conservatives (e.g., the Bush administration's wire-tapping fiasco). It's not about WHO they protect, it's about WHAT they're protecting. And, hey, coming to the aid of Rush (who is a multi-millionaire and doesn't need their help anyway) gives the impression of political impartiality, so more the better! Edited March 16, 2006 by WCSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 this case will probably be thrown out, but its not frivilous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Its funny because this is the same slippery slope technique that gets cried about for abortion. The obvious goal is to one by one try to take away both the methods of execution, and the burden to get an execution approved and carried out, but of course it isn't seen like that. Its also the samething that is being done with gun control, starting with the most outrageous weapons, and things like waiting periods and the like. One by one, item by item, take away things, and then they use tha to justify the next thing that needs to go in their opinion. This is nothing but tried and true politicking that is exploited by both sides of the aisle. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts