Trying to tell someone from the right that the ACLU is about defending constitutional rights, not about championing causes, is pretty hopeless. I suspect this would fall under the definition of ‘irony’, in that the party of the right is always yammering about upholding the Constitution. At times it seems like they are, instead, systematically trying to dismantle it, but that’s for another thread.
Unfortunately, even with plenty of prior cases where the ACLU defended Christians’ rights re: prayer and carrying a bible, the idea that they’re not some Left-Wing Atheist Conspiracy to Destroy Christianity and the USofA doesn’t take hold, somehow…
Wait a minute–why is the ACLU spending their hard-earned money on THIS case? My understanding, from various hate-watch organization websites, is that Phelps, and many of his spawn, are lawyers, and that Phelps was, at one point before the crazy, a civil rights lawyer (I believe I read this on the Southern Poverty Law Center site). In fact, when a place I worked at was targeted by WBC, I attended a meeting where we were told to not respond to their taunts at all, and definitely not to get close enought to touch, because they love to bring civil cases for that (not sure what the claim would be, though).
This thing has the stink of an “ACLU (Doesn’t) Lean Left Debate,” nothing BBQ-uey about it.
Now, a “Fuck the Phelps”-type rant would be more like it, though I’m sure that such a thread exists somewhere here abouts, if one were to check threads opened near the dates of media coverage of the Phelps “protesting” at US funerals of servicemen, as well as “protesting” at Walter Reed.
Understood. I took the OP premise as a response to people who believe that the ACLU swings left. Any such debate would be along the lines of: Be it resolved that the ACLU is not politically neutral.
I agree that the ACLU likely finds this particular client irksome. Then again, the ACLU frequently takes on unpopular clientele in order to defend civil freedoms, by defending those on the fringes of those freedoms.
The issue with the ACLU’s work isn’t the content of their appellees, but rather the freedom of those appellees to express themselves.
He could still represent himself, though, couldn’t he? I’ve never been admitted to the bar, and I can still defend myself in court. Doesn’t being disbarred simply mean you can’t represent anyone else in court?
As for Fred’s time as a “civil rights lawyer,” it wasn’t motivated out of any interest or compassion for blacks. It was simply that poor, uneducated blacks with little trust or understanding in the judicial system were easier to defraud.
You sure beat the shit out of that strawman!
Assuming somebody wanted to play Scarecrow to your Dorothy, they might opine that the exception proves the rule, assuming of course they bought into the fallacy that Phelps represents the Right any more than the Ku Klux Klan (which the ACLU also represented.)
Scarecrow would say the ACLU is only about the left and kooky hate-mongers, and if he was looking for a dig he might wonder aloud if the distinction is worth noting.