ACLU leader (former?) guilty of child porn

[EvilMonkey]

I'm generally not a big fan of the ACLU, they tend to be suing my Church and my employer on a semi-regular basis. But to be fair, they SELECTIVLY DEFEND the Constitution. They do this by making certain that the lowest forms of life are allowed their rights. By making certain that those low life's are allowed all the rights that the Constitution guarantees, we know that everyone else will be protected as well. I don't see anyone else doing that. Free legal services are a rare thing for scum bags to get. It also makes for strange bedfellows. I know one very conservative former attorney turned Judge who was very supportive of the ACLU. His love of our legal system and our Constitution was great enough to want to see it preserved. He would speak of a slippery slope when scum bags (my words) lose their Constitutional rights just for being scum bags. My problem, and I am certain quite a few others here, is how they interpret the Constitution.

 

I never have liked it when we try and paint an entire organization bad based on the actions of a small percentage of members.

I fixed that for you. When they take on a pro-second amendment case or two, let me know.

[Texsox]

I fixed that for you. When they take on a pro-second amendment case or two, let me know.

 

Great point. I'm trying to think of a Constitutional case involving the 2nd that has been tried recently. We also have the NRA and all of our attorneys there, so the ACLU probably isn't of much help. I know I'd rather have paid NRA attorneys than volunteers from the ACLU defending my gun rights.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 31, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fixed that for you. When they take on a pro-second amendment case or two, let me know.

It has been mentioned several times, mostly by crimsonweltall, that the ACLU views the second amendment as a group's right, not an individual's. I'm not saying they are right, but with the way the second amendment is written (a well regulated militia) I can understand.

Edited May 31, 2007 by santo=dorf

[EvilMonkey]

It has been mentioned several times, mostly by crimsonweltall, that the ACLU views the second amendment as a group's right, not an individual's. I'm not saying they are right, but with the way the second amendment is written (a well regulated militia) I can understand.

And that would be the only one of the 10 that wasn't an individual right? You are correct that that is the arguement of the ACLU, I just find it convenient that they interpret that one right as a collective one, when all the rest are individual rights. They read the first ammendment so generally so as to allow a casual mention of religion to somehow constitute 'establishment', but yet try to be so literal with the second.

[Texsox]

Part of this is also a resource and interest issue on what they choose to defend. They are, after all, largely volunteering. But I think looking over their cases, there is something for everyone to dislike.

[Balta1701]

And that would be the only one of the 10 that wasn't an individual right? You are correct that that is the arguement of the ACLU, I just find it convenient that they interpret that one right as a collective one, when all the rest are individual rights. They read the first ammendment so generally so as to allow a casual mention of religion to somehow constitute 'establishment', but yet try to be so literal with the second.

Just out of curiosity, how often does the NRA bring suits regarding unreasonable search and seizure or freedom of the press?

 

Isn't an organization free to define its motives however it wants? Hey here's a thought. If you don't agree with the way the ACLU interprets the Constitution, or you don't agree with the cases it chooses to take up...then don't contribute money to them and don't join it!

 

I may not agree with the way the NRA interprets the 2nd amendment, but I don't spend every waking moment watching for mid-level NRA execs who wind up misusing guns, and I don't think that one NRA guy misusing a gun would be a sign that the NRA is either right or wrong about anything.

[EvilMonkey]

Just out of curiosity, how often does the NRA bring suits regarding unreasonable search and seizure or freedom of the press?

 

Isn't an organization free to define its motives however it wants? Hey here's a thought. If you don't agree with the way the ACLU interprets the Constitution, or you don't agree with the cases it chooses to take up...then don't contribute money to them and don't join it!

 

I may not agree with the way the NRA interprets the 2nd amendment, but I don't spend every waking moment watching for mid-level NRA execs who wind up misusing guns, and I don't think that one NRA guy misusing a gun would be a sign that the NRA is either right or wrong about anything.

The NRA doesn't claim to be a defender of our civil rights, the ACLU does. maybe they should change thier mission statement to defending only those rights that we deem worthy or defending. Right now, it says they defend them all.

http://www.aclu.org/about/

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

 

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

 

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

 

As for Tex telling us how their lawyers are 'volunteers', yes, they are, until they win or get a settlement, and then they 'bill' the loser for their time, which is a major source of funding for the ACLU. Pretty sweet gig. High profile lawyer donates a bit of time to the ACLU (yes Tex, GOOD lawyers volunteer for the ACLU, not scrubs), they bully some poor school district into settling, then 'bill' the distric for thier inflated rate which gets donated to the ACLU, getting the ACLu income, and the lawyer a tax writeoff. Sweet gig, if you can get it.

[Texsox]

I thought the ACLU represented people, why would they receive the settlement?

[EvilMonkey]

I thought the ACLU represented people, why would they receive the settlement?

The lawyers are able to petition for their 'fees' which end up going to the ACLU. That is one of the reasons they target small school districts and such, because they can't afford a lengthy battle, and the insurance companies usually tell them to settle. I'll get you some more info on that later.

[Texsox]

The lawyers are able to petition for their 'fees' which end up going to the ACLU. That is one of the reasons they target small school districts and such, because they can't afford a lengthy battle, and the insurance companies usually tell them to settle. I'll get you some more info on that later.

 

Yet they have taken on BSA and the Catholic Church, so it isn't just small battles they enter into.

[EvilMonkey]

Yet they have taken on BSA and the Catholic Church, so it isn't just small battles they enter into.

Sure, deep pocket defendants help too. The ACLU uses a little known 1976 federal law called the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act to demand reimbursement for its attorney's fees for suing crosses, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments, and liberal judges grant these awards. This law was designed to help plaintiffs in civil rights cases, but the ACLU is using it for First Amendment cases, asserting a civil right not to see a cross or the Ten Commandments. That is why they go after every cross they can bear. There was a bill introduced to overturn this in some cases, but it was, of course, fought by the ACLU. I believe it was called The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679). Here is a somewhat biased story about it, but it gets the point across.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=44155

[Balta1701]

Of course...you're sort of ignoring the key point...the ACLU only gets its attorney fees paid for if it wins a case. If an opponent actually has a valid case, then they won't be paying for the ACLU's attorneys. The issue of course is that it actually is constitutionally problematic for the government to be endorsing one type of religion over another, etc, so there's always a reasonable shot that if someone does something stupid, like insist that this government building needs to have a cross on it's front otherwise Jesus will hate America, they will lose. In other words...don't put the stuff there if you're not constitutionally sure. It's really not that hard to read the recent court decisions to figure out where the court will come donw.

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course...you're sort of ignoring the key point...the ACLU only gets its attorney fees paid for if it wins a case. If an opponent actually has a valid case, then they won't be paying for the ACLU's attorneys. The issue of course is that it actually is constitutionally problematic for the government to be endorsing one type of religion over another, etc, so there's always a reasonable shot that if someone does something stupid, like insist that this government building needs to have a cross on it's front otherwise Jesus will hate America, they will lose. In other words...don't put the stuff there if you're not constitutionally sure. It's really not that hard to read the recent court decisions to figure out where the court will come donw.

 

Yep. You plant a cross in the public square and slap a plaque on it that says "In Remembrance of the Traditions of our Founding Fathers."

[EvilMonkey]

Of course...you're sort of ignoring the key point...the ACLU only gets its attorney fees paid for if it wins a case. If an opponent actually has a valid case, then they won't be paying for the ACLU's attorneys. The issue of course is that it actually is constitutionally problematic for the government to be endorsing one type of religion over another, etc, so there's always a reasonable shot that if someone does something stupid, like insist that this government building needs to have a cross on it's front otherwise Jesus will hate America, they will lose. In other words...don't put the stuff there if you're not constitutionally sure. It's really not that hard to read the recent court decisions to figure out where the court will come donw.

They also get the fees if the case is settled, but the point is that they get fees where there are no actual damages, not actual fees to be recouped since the services were donated. They incurred no injury and no expense, yet make money. Like I said, a sweet deal if you can get it. And I will conceed a point that especially in today's world, if a city decided to build a new courthouse and have religious symbols all over it, that would attract attention. but when they go after decades old war memorials because they dare have a cross on them, that's going a bit too far.

[Texsox]

They also get the fees if the case is settled, but the point is that they get fees where there are no actual damages, not actual fees to be recouped since the services were donated. They incurred no injury and no expense, yet make money. Like I said, a sweet deal if you can get it. And I will conceed a point that especially in today's world, if a city decided to build a new courthouse and have religious symbols all over it, that would attract attention. but when they go after decades old war memorials because they dare have a cross on them, that's going a bit too far.

 

 

 

Isn't that what every lawyer does?

 

 

 

I agree the retroactive stuff drives me crazy.