Google “ACLU” and “Liberal”. There’s your answer.
Unless, of course, you’re limiting yourself to just SDMB.
Really, how so? According to their own “Scorecard for 109th Congress: U.S. Senate”, 44/45 of Democrat Senators “vote the right way” :rolleyes: more than 50% of the time, compared to only 2 Repubicans who do so.
This is neutral?
CS
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=109&location=S&lcmd=prev&lcmd_cf=
Carol Stream: Point taken. How about this: “When it comes to taking cases, the ACLU is neutral.”
It’s not the ACLU’s fault that Republican support for civil liberties is so poor. (The ACLU doesn’t show a great deal of enthusiasm for Democrats either.)
Damnit, it’s been a long day.
“When it comes to choosing clients, the ACLU doesn’t care what, if any, politics the client espouses.”
Well, it’s obvious, then, that the facts have an undeniable anti-Republican agenda, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
Thanks for the assist.
No need to show enthusiasm. After all, Democrats “vote the right way” most of the time. :rolleyes:
I find the concept of “voting the right way” to be chilling, I guess YMMV.
CS
I can recall, not so long ago, some Dopers accusing Amnesty International of "political bias. But nobody could really back it up.
They’re party-neutral, not issue neutral. If Democrats suddenly started attempting to strip people of their civil liberties, the ACLU would be all over them. When the Democrats were busy keeping blacks from exercising their civil rights, you can be damned sure the ACLU weren’t siding with the Dems. Not only are they issue oriented, they even stated on their site exactly what issues they were grading on.
Did you see any of those seven as not being civil rights related?
Do you know of any issue that has come up in which they have sided with the curbing of liberties, regardless of which party was behind it?
I don’t know…maybe a Congressional contingent who consistently backs the blatant erosion of civil liberties just because the Executive proposing such erosion can shout “9/11! 9/11! 9/11!” louder than anyone else really does vote the “wrong” way…
Not that the Democrats have exactly been mounting a strong counter-attack…
If “voting the right way” is defined as “voting in favor of civil liberties,” what could possibly be chilling about that? Unless it means a “chilling effect” on violation of civil liberties – in which case, so much the better!
See, there’s the problem. In today’s US political scene, there IS no such thing as party-neutral. “If you’re not for us, you’re against us.” Polarization has progressed so far in the last 20 years that anyone who questions one political party’s motives based on the issues, then it’s “obviously” bias against that party, rather than the simple fact that that party is crap on those issues. Because the party is never wrong…
BTW, no one could despise Phelps and his beliefs and his agenda and his tactics more deeply than I do. But even I was a little disturbed by Congress’ response of forbidding protests near military funerals. Slippery slope, you know? After all, back in the '60s and '70s, there might have been many circumstances where protesting a military funeral – or blocking the entrance to a military induction center – would have been the most socially responsible thing a patriotic American could do!
[drools in anticipation of pile-on 
]
Out of curiousity, what civil liberties have you been stripped of?
CS
How do you imagine, the ACLU defines “the right way” in the case of any particular legislative action? Do you find it “chilling” that they make it a point to analyze and form an opinion on the civil liberties-related ramifications of each piece of legislative business?
Some might simply call it “being thorough.” I’ve no idea what your line of work is, but I don’t imagine you have much of an appetite for placing your fortunes at the mercy of random occurrences, at least when some homework will allow you to be prepared to meet predictable challenges.
Not from me. I thought the law in question was a bad idea and probably unconstitutionally restrictive from the very first time I heard of it. Not to mention the slap in the face that comes with the fact that Phelps had been doing his funeral protests and general disruptions for even slightly-well-known homosexuals and straight supporters of same for years before Congress felt the need to do ANYTHING and only that because they started to protest military funerals. If Phelps was beneath their notice when he was harassing the families of fags, why does harassing the families of soldiers make him a more important or dangerous nuisance?
To ask the question is to know the answer.
If this be Godwinization, you will never see it done more gracefully! 