# ACLU Hits a NEW LOW!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 8, 2001, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404 "2001-09-08T15:38:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/121 "2001-09-11T13:20:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\*In other words, if the right to procreate is decided, it’ll be a new right. \*\* I agree wiht **Bill H.**. By twising the Constitution into the meanings they prefer, the ACLU is crapping on the real Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Danimal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Danimal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danimal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/122 "2001-09-11T13:39:15Z")
I composed a big response last night and then lost it through a mis-click. I am too busy today to give this thread the full attention it deserves, but in the meantime… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > From the website: > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by \* \*\* > > A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states’ rights to maintain and train a militia. > > \*\* > > So the “right of the people” to be a “collective” is spelled out pretty damn clearly in the second, has been upheld by the Supreme Court and there is therefore nothing nefarious or even partisan in the way the ACLU sees it. > \*\* Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, **Stoid** , and assume you just misread that. The quote you have there is **not by the Supreme Court**. It’s from _U.S. v. Warin_, a U.S. appellate circuit decision. The Supreme Court has never made any such ruling. _U.S. v. Miller_, which is a Supreme Court case, just declares that sawed-off shotguns are not among the “arms” that the people have the right to bear, since such shotguns supposedly have no practical use in a militia. Nowhere does it hold that only the States, not the people, have the right to bear arms. The only thing that the militia clause “spells out” is that a free State needs a well-regulated militia to be secure. It does not say that the people really don’t have the right to bear arms, in plain contradiction of the next clause. Here is an [article](http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm) by David Kopel, being prepared for the St. Louis University Public Law Review, that examines what the Supreme Court has actually said about the 2nd amendment. While these are mostly dicta, they are said to clearly reflect a view of the 2nd amendment as an individual right. Incidentally, even if the ACLU were right that Supreme Court opinion effectively nullifies the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, that would hardly excuse their agreeing with it. It’s not as if the ACLU considers the Supreme Court the final word on what is a constitutional right and what isn’t. SCOTUS has long since ruled that the death penalty isn’t cruel and unusual punishment (it was standard procedure in America when the 8th amendment was enacted), but the ACLU continues to insist that it is cruel and unusual punishment. I note, BTW, that no one has yet responded to **pldennison** ’s statement that the entire adult male population 18-45 is legally in the militia. I’ll be back when I can, but probably not till tomorrow or late tonight. ---
**Author:** ![Danimal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Danimal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danimal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/123 "2001-09-11T13:45:20Z")
Sorry, **Stoid.** You didn’t misread anything at all, the ACLU did. Your quote from the ACLU’s page is correct, where it mischaracterizes _U.S. v. Miller_. If you read the actual quote from _U.S. v. Miller_, you see the Court’s actual ruling has nothing to do with what the ACLU says it does. The actual ruling on individual rights vs. collective rights is further up the page, at _U.S. v. Warin_. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/124 "2001-09-11T14:37:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > **In other words, if the right to procreate is decided, it’ll be a new right.** No it won’t be. [Skinner v. Oklahoma](http://www.wku.edu/Government/vskinner.htm) in 1942 held that there is a fundamental right to procreate. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/125 "2001-09-11T17:00:33Z")
december, I refer you to your statement “They don’t oppose Democrats.” ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/126 "2001-09-11T19:27:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > \*\*december, I refer you to your statement “They don’t oppose Democrats.” \*\* How about the entire quote? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/127 "2001-09-11T20:58:32Z")
From Page one. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*The ACLU also failed to offer support to women who claimed to have been wronged by Bill Clinton – Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Katherine Willey, Juanita Broderick, etc. I also haven’t seen them jump to the support of Anne Marie Smith against Gary Condit. They don’t oppose Democrats. > > Even when the ACLU agrees with Republicans, they keep mighty quiet about. They haven’t made a big fuss about opposing campaign finance reform, for example, although their official position is that it’s an infringement of free speech. > > In short, the ACLU is essentially a liberal or Democratic civil liberties organization. There are other civil liberties organizations that support conservatives, such as Judicial Watch and Landmark Legal.\*\* So, it does seem very clear to me at least, that you made the claim that the ACLU is “essentially a (snip) a Democratic civil liberties organization”. THere it is, in context. Care to elaborate now how **ruadh** ’s misinterpreting it? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/128 "2001-09-11T21:26:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* Jiffy Rice, **december** , what part of the phrase “GOVERNMENT establishment of religion” do you not understand?! . **Kimstu** , are you not aware that there is quite a controversy over the meaning of the establishment clause? One side (including the ACLU) says it means “separation of church and state.” The other side says it merely prohibits the establisment of a specific official state religion, like the Greek Orthodox in Greece. > [@](#): > > _Even if the ACLU’s position on Prop. 209 were right, their choice of side demonstrates where where their sympathy lies._ > > WTF!?!!??? “Even if they were right,” their decision to support the “right” position would prove they were partisan?!? In order to be non-partisan, they should take the wrong position instead? Again, there are issues that aren’t legally clear. The ACLU supported their side because they support affirmative action. > [@](#): > > For fuck’s sake, **december**. The organization’s mission is to defend civil liberties. They opposed a particular piece of legislation on the grounds that it violated civil liberties. If you want to claim that that’s “partisan”, you have to show not only that their reasoning is wrong but that their judgement was swayed by partisan prejudice. On the Prop 209 lawsuit, the ACLU reasoning was wrong. (BTW I didn’t say partisan prejudice. Belief in affirmative action is perfectly reasonable, but I do maintain that their positon was in furtherance of their political belief.) Their argument was not upheld, except by Judge Henderson, an ACLU member. (In fact, IIRC, he had been in an ACLU leadership position.) > [@](#): > > As an attempt to portray the ACLU’s actual position on Prop. 209, that was pretty pathetic. Shit **december** , don’t you bother to look up facts even after I go to the trouble of finding links for you? The press release I linked to stated: > > > [@](#): > > > > Plaintiffs contend the initiative violates the Equal Protection clause by barring women and minorities from seeking protective race- or gender-conscious legislation when other groups are permitted to seek whatever preferential treatment they please. > > > > Further, plaintiff attorneys claim that Proposition 209 prevents state and local governments from meeting their constitutionally mandated duty to remedy discrimination against women and racial minorities. I wasn’t attempting to portray the ACLU’s argument, but rather to summarize the case as I saw it. **Kimstu** , you’ve repeated the ACLU argument. Every lawyer has an argument. Can you not see the flaws in the ACLU argument? The appellate court and USSC could. > [@](#): > > \*They were actually upheld by an ACLU judge, who had promised to recuse himself (or herself?) on ACLU cases, but went back on his word. Of course, the appellate court immediately overruled him. No doubt, a good liberal can find some excuse for this unethical judge. \* > > Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. > > Cite? **Kimstu** , here’s some background on the Prop 209 litigation. Judge Henderson was the ACLU member who ought to have recused himself, but didn’t. > [@](#): > > The day after Proposition 209’s opponents lost at the ballot box they sued in federal court. They won an initial victory in district court, 946 F. Supp. 1480 (N.D. Cal. 1996), but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 209, Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (amended opinion). The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would not review that decision (U.S. No. 97-369). > [@](#): > > Today (Monday, December 23, 1996) U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson issued a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of the anti-affirmative action measure Proposition 209. The order came in the case of Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, the class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundations of Northern and Southern California, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, the Employment Law Center and other civil rights groups on November 6 on behalf of a broad coalition of minority and women contractors, employees, students and educators who would be injured if Proposition 209 were enforced. [http://www.aclu.org/news/n122396b.html](http://www.aclu.org/news/n122396b.html) > [@](#): > > Formally known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209 is an amendment to the state constitution which stipulates that “the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” On November 6, a number of civil rights groups filed a complaint in a Californian district court arguing that the amendment was unconstitutional. This case is known as The Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson. The plaintiffs asked for an injunction to prevent the state from implementing and enforcing the law. On December 23, the district court granted a preliminary injunction after finding the amendment in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision was appealed in January and went before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in February. This federal court overturned the decision of the district court, making > governmental affirmative action illegal in California [http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct97/oct97a.html](http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct97/oct97a.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2001, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/129 "2001-09-12T06:48:04Z")
**amarinth** wrote > [@](#): > > No it won’t be. > Skinner v. Oklahoma in 1942 held that there is a fundamental right to procreate. Before you make such confident claims, please read your own cites. It is completely irrelevant. It talks about sterilization, which has only minor overlap. Furthermore, that case was in 1942, and you’ll certainly understand that since 1942 (and before as well), many criminals have been denied conjugal visits and therefore procreation rights. So even if your cite did say what you think it did, it was not enforced (at all), and therefore is not relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2001, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/130 "2001-09-12T17:04:03Z")
december said: > [@](#): > > OTOH the Dems oppose allowing people to peacefully protest near an abortion clinic. Perhaps (I don’t know), but I don’t think the **ACLU** opposes people _peacefully_ protesting outside abortion clinics. The problem is that so many of the protesters get violent or abrasive to the point of not being peaceful. Thus the regulations on protesting are response to a widespread and otherwise uncontrollable problem. december said: > [@](#): > > I was thinking of the many school cases where the free exercise clause would support one side and the establishment clause would support the other, e.g., Moment of Silence, voluntary student prayer at football games. In none of these cases did the ACLU take the free exercise side, to my knowledge. I think perhaps they picked the establishment clause over the free exercise clause because in these cases the free exercise clause is inappropriately applied and the establishment clause is being violated. I guess that’s interpretational, and so you are arguing their chosing the interpretation they do makes the liberals not conservatives? > [@](#): > > Regarding the Moment of Silence in schools, I thought the ACLU opposed it. Opposition to the Moment of Silence would go against the free expression but in favor of the establishment clause. How is opposing MOS anti-free expression? The Moment of Silence is the school official telling people “you must now take a moment of silent reflection and prayer”. That is a directed act. Free exercise allows the students to pick _an arbitrary_ time during their day and silently reflect or pray themselves, without being told and without having a specific time limitation enforced (you must stop praying… now). A directed act makes it a violation of the establishment clause. Or are you arguing that the free exercise clause should trump the establishment clause? I would think that would subvert the whole intent of the establishment clause. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2001, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/131 "2001-09-12T23:11:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Irishman \* > Perhaps (I don’t know), but I don’t think the **ACLU** opposes people _peacefully_ protesting outside abortion clinics. The problem is that so many of the protesters get violent or abrasive to the point of not being peaceful. Thus the regulations on protesting are response to a widespread and otherwise uncontrollable problem. I do know that there was a court case involving how far away the protesters had to be. I believe that the ACLU supported the greater distance requirement. No doubt they were concerned about the risk of violence, which seems perfectly reasonable. OTOH the ACLU supported the free speech right to burn the American flag – an action which also could lead to violence. My contention is that the ACLU’s position was guided by their general support for abortion rights. I see nothing wrong with this position. I’m pro-choice, too. All I’m saying is that the ACLU’s free speech position is guided in part by their support of a woman’s right to choose. > [@](#): > > I think perhaps they picked the establishment clause over the free exercise clause because in these cases the free exercise clause is inappropriately applied and the establishment clause is being violated. I guess that’s interpretational, and so you are arguing their chosing the interpretation they do makes them liberals not conservatives? Yes. Or, more precisely, I consider the Constitution somewhat ambiguous, and I contend that the ACLU chose their position partly because they are less supportive of religion. That’s OK with me. I’m not religious. All I contend is that to some degree they have a social agenda. > [@](#): > > How is opposing MOS anti-free expression? The Moment of Silence is the school official telling people “you must now take a moment of silent reflection and prayer”. That is a directed act. Free exercise allows the students to pick _an arbitrary_ time during their day and silently reflect or pray themselves, without being told and without having a specific time limitation enforced (you must stop praying… now). A directed act makes it a violation of the establishment clause. I agree that it’s a stretch to argue that MOS is needed for free expression. I also think it’s a stretch to argue that it violates the establishment clause. After all, the student is free to pray in any religion, or to think about philosophical matters. Many of us would use the MOS as an opportunity to think about sex. Again, I think the ACLU position is partly due to their negative feeling about religion. ( However, I must admit that they may be guided by their very expansive view of the establishment clause, rahter than opposition to religion. In practice, there’s not much difference. > [@](#): > > Or are you arguing that the free exercise clause should trump the establishment clause? I would think that would subvert the whole intent of the establishment clause. No, I don’t mean to make this argument. All I’m saying is that the ACLU expansive view of the establishment clause makes them look anti-religion. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2001, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/132 "2001-09-13T10:51:55Z")
I don’t know why I’m bothering trying to explain anything to december, as december has yet to understand anything I’ve tried to explain so far. Maybe I’m not a very good explainer. or maybe december isn’t very bright. All things are possible. Re abortion protestors. I don’t know what the official position of the ACLU is. But the various “bubble” cases were argued because two constitutional rights of two different groups of people were in conflict. When this happens, courts try to apply a balancing test between the two impugned rights. IMHO, requiring anti-choice protestors to stay far enough away from those seeking to enter and exit building to allow them to enter while still permitting protestors to demonstrate was the best solution. It’s now established law that states may set up a buffer zone around abortion clinics. Now the cases are about how large that buffer zone may be and whether the number of people who protest may be regulated. ---
**Author:** ![Danimal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Danimal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danimal)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/133 "2001-09-13T20:31:56Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\* IMHO, requiring anti-choice protestors to stay far enough away from those seeking to enter and exit building to allow them to enter while still permitting protestors to demonstrate was the best solution._\* I didn’t think that the bubble was restricted to “anti-choice” protesters. I thought the bubble applied to everyone, so as to satisfy the content-neutral requirement of the First Amendment. I think the bubble passes constitutional muster, but only if it is indeed content neutral. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2001, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/134 "2001-09-13T20:54:44Z")
december said: > [@](#): > > OTOH the ACLU supported the free speech right to burn the American flag – an action which also could lead to violence. I’m not sure I follow the parallel. It looks inverted to me. The flag burners are not the ones starting the violence, whereas the abortion protesters are typically the ones getting violent. Perhaps we should enforce buffer zones around flag burners for consistency? > [@](#): > > My contention is that the ACLU’s position was guided by their general support for abortion rights. I see nothing wrong with this position. I’m pro-choice, too. All I’m saying is that the ACLU’s free speech position is guided in part by their support of a woman’s right to choose. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m trying to understand your point and am filling in the blanks. You’re saying that the ACLU’s defense of abortion is predicated on their interpretation of the pro-life/pro-choice definition. In other words is the embryo/fetus a full human or not. Sure, that makes sense. How can you define an embryo as a full human and still give the right to terminate that life? That’s the whole murder angle. So the interpretation of the status of the embryo/fetus is the basis for determining whether abortion is murder or not. I agree. But I’m not sure what your objection is. Because they have the view they have on that determination, they are liberals? > [@](#): > > Or, more precisely, I consider the Constitution somewhat ambiguous, and I contend that the ACLU chose their position partly because they are less supportive of religion. That’s OK with me. I’m not religious. All I contend is that to some degree they have a social agenda. I don’t agree that they are less supportive of religion. Many ACLU members and activists are religious. But you’re saying they interpret the ambiguities in a liberal manner, that makes the ACLU liberal at heart. Is that your contention? > [@](#): > > However, I must admit that they may be guided by their very expansive view of the establishment clause, rahter than opposition to religion. In practice, there’s not much difference. It is telling that you think opposing forced religion is opposition to religion, when it is supportive of all religion instead of one particular religion. The establishment clause is what allows very disparate religions in this country to flourish. > [@](#): > > All I’m saying is that the ACLU expansive view of the establishment clause makes them look anti-religion. Only to a christian (i.e. the ones with the cultural heritage of being in charge). If through history your religion has gotten away with things that are violations of other peoples’ rights, and the ACLU supports removing those violations, that sure looks like it is taking “rights” away from the people who have been following those practices. But of course that’s telling of _my_ position, isn’t it. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2001, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/135 "2001-09-13T23:45:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Irishman \* > I’m not sure I follow the parallel. It looks inverted to me. The flag burners are not the ones starting the violence, whereas the abortion protesters are typically the ones getting violent. Perhaps we should enforce buffer zones around flag burners for consistency? Fair enough. But, that the wider buffer zone applies to _non-violent_ protesters. If the protest becomes violent, the police always had the right to stop it. The ACLU opponents complain that the buffer zone is so wide that the pregnant women cannot hear what the proptesters are saying. This could have been considered a free speech case by the ACLU, but they’re so pro-choice that such a position would be unthinkable IMHO. > [@](#): > > I’m trying to understand your point and am filling in the blanks. You’re saying that the ACLU’s defense of abortion is predicated on their interpretation of the pro-life/pro-choice definition. In other words is the embryo/fetus a full human or not. Let me put it this way. I’m strongly pro-choice, I like the result of Roe v. Wade, but believe it was wrongly decided. I have some company in the POV, e.g. Columbia U. philospher Nisbit. In theory, there could be pro-life ACLU leaders who believe that the Constitution requires that abortion be legal. These hypothetical ACLUers would support Roe v. Wade purely on Constitutional grounds, even thought they disapproved the result. My contention is that there are no such people. That is, IMHO the ACLU supports abortion rights in part because they believe that’s good policy. So their legal view is driven partly by their social view. > [@](#): > > But I’m not sure what your objection is. Because they have the view they have on that determination, they are liberals? The hyopothetical pro-life advocate of Roe v. Wade would be a conservative, but I contend that they don’t exist. > [@](#): > > I don’t agree that they are less supportive of religion. Many ACLU members and activists are religious. I haven’t done a survey, but in my ACLU member days I always felt that an atheist like me was very welcome. > [@](#): > > But you’re saying they interpret the ambiguities in a liberal manner, that makes the ACLU liberal at heart. Is that your contention? Yes. > [@](#): > > It is telling that you think opposing forced religion is opposition to religion, when it is supportive of all religion instead of one particular religion. The establishment clause is what allows very disparate religions in this country to flourish. Yes, that’s true in principle. Still, in the period of 1948 - 56, prayers were read at Friday assembly in my school. I believe that was common. Still, many different religions flourished at that time. My point is, it isn’t necessary to follow the current more strict view of the establishment clause. Diverse religions did just fine throughout the long history of the US, when that clause had a different meaning than it does today. > [@](#): > > \*All I’m saying is that the ACLU expansive view of the establishment clause makes them look anti-religion. \* > Only to a christian (i.e. the ones with the cultural heritage of being in charge). If through history your religion has gotten away with things that are violations of other peoples’ rights, and the ACLU supports removing those violations, that sure looks like it is taking “rights” away from the people who have been following those practices. But of course that’s telling of _my_ position, isn’t it. Well, I’m Jewish by culture. The ACLU has also taken away the opportunity for public schools to have songs and displays celebrating Jewish holidays. I think that’s a loss to all students. ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2001, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/136 "2001-09-14T04:18:13Z")
I am thankful that the ACLU has taken up the task of defending the constitutional rights of even the most dispicable individuals. Without someone playing this role we would all have fewer liberties today. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2001, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/137 "2001-09-14T05:19:40Z")
> [@](#): > > I didn’t think that the bubble was restricted to “anti-choice” protesters. I thought the bubble applied to everyone, so as to satisfy the content-neutral requirement of the First Amendment. > > I think the bubble passes constitutional muster, but only if it is indeed content neutral. Right. The statutes refer to demonstrators within a certain distance from the clinic or the person entering the clinic, without regard to the type of demonstration. Of course the statutes were passed because of anti-choice protests but anyone protesting around a clinic would be subject to them. Regarding the ACLU’s position on them, I could not find anything specific on the “bubble” ordinances but I did find [this](http://www.aclu.org/news/4aprarc.html) from April 4, 1996: > [@](#): > > NC JUDGE VOIDS LAW CURBING ABORTION PROTESTS > > CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A North Carolina judge invalidated state and federal laws that restrict protests at abortion clinics as unconstitutional, The Charlotte Observer reported in its Wednesday editions. > In a 60-page ruling, Judge Robert Potter ruled that the laws target abortion opponents and deny them First Amendment rights to free speech, the newspaper reported. The ruling overturns the state’s No Obstruction of Health Care Facilities Act, and the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) of 1994. > Most U.S. courts have upheld the federal law, making it unclear whether the judge’s action was binding. The ruling, however, will ban police officers in the western federal district of North Carolina from using the laws to control protests at abortion clinics, the paper said. > The ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, however, strongly disagreed with the judge’s First Amendment ruling, saying “as an historic defender of free speech, the ACLU has long supported FACE, and – in fact – lobbied heavily to get it passed.” > “FACE permits peaceful protests and the exercise of free speech. What it doesn’t allow is physical obstruction and the use of force or violence to block access to clinics,” the ACLU said. The U.S. Supreme Court has since upheld the constitutionality of the statutes in question. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2001, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/138 "2001-09-14T21:24:57Z")
december said: > [@](#): > > The ACLU opponents complain that the buffer zone is so wide that the pregnant women cannot hear what the proptesters are saying. This could have been considered a free speech case by the ACLU, but they’re so pro-choice that such a position would be unthinkable IMHO. Just where is it spelled out you have the right to be heard by a particular audience? If you write an Op-ed piece and I don’t read that newspaper, have I violated your free speech rights by not listening? They can always hold up signs and banners. > [@](#): > > In theory, there could be pro-life ACLU leaders who believe that the Constitution requires that abortion be legal. These hypothetical ACLUers would support Roe v. Wade purely on Constitutional grounds, even thought they disapproved the result. I’m not sure about that. How can someone find abortion constitutional if it is murder? That’s why I have trouble with the whole abortion debate - how people draws the lines defines where they come down, and while I may argue with how a person draws that line, I can see their point. I guess I’d need a clearer explanation of your theoretical position above. > [@](#): > > I haven’t done a survey, but in my ACLU member days I always felt that an atheist like me was very welcome. Yes, I’m sure, and a number are atheists. Doesn’t mean all are. > [@](#): > > Still, in the period of 1948 - 56, prayers were read at Friday assembly in my school. I believe that was common. Still, many different religions flourished at that time. > > My point is, it isn’t necessary to follow the current more strict view of the establishment clause. Diverse religions did just fine throughout the long history of the US, when that clause had a different meaning than it does today. It cultivates an attitude that one religion or cluster of religions is approved and others are disproved, and being irreligious is disproved. A clear demonstration is protests against Wiccans holding ceremonies in the military, but having a paid chaplain. > [@](#): > > Well, I’m Jewish by culture. The ACLU has also taken away the opportunity for public schools to have songs and displays celebrating Jewish holidays. I think that’s a loss to all students. Thats mostly due to the religion and culture being so confusingly intertwined. What’s a religious observance, and what’s a cultural observance? Of course we have the same problem with other American cultural practices with roots in christianity. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2001, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/139 "2001-09-14T22:52:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > So, it does seem very clear to me at least, that you made the claim that the ACLU is “essentially a (snip) a Democratic civil liberties organization”. > > There it is, in context. Care to elaborate now how **ruadh** ’s misinterpreting it? \*\* OK. **ruadh** interpreted me as having repeatedly said that the ACLU “always sides with the Democrats.” Here’s the difference between “always siding with Dems” and being “essentially a Dem. organization”: The former statement would be false if the ACLU ever failed to side with Democrats, even one time. The latter statement is true as long as the ACL sides Dems. most of the time. It allows some exceptions. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by irishman_ Just where is it spelled out you have the right to be heard by a particular audience? If you write an Op-ed piece and I don’t read that newspaper, have I violated your free speech rights by not listening? They can always hold up signs and banners. Compare abortion clinic picketing with picketing by striking workers. Suppose a law were passed providing such a wide buffer zone that the replacement workers couldn’t hear the picketing strikers. I’m confident that the ACLU would consider this a violaton of freedom of speech. I sure would. BTW confrontations between picketers and scabs often lead to violence, a lot more often than picketing at abortion clinics does. Should the buffer zone be wider at abortion clinics than for striking workers? The ACLU supported such a law. That’s not because the Constitution specifies some difference in the treatment of these two groups. It’s because the ACLU is more supportive of abortion-seekers than they are of strike-breakers. This is an example where their position is based on which activities they agree with, not just pure legal principles. I have no problem with their views. However, I do object to twisting our Constitution to support their political preferences. I’d prefer them to lobby Congress and state legislatures to pass laws they favor. That’s what the rest of us do. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404/140 "2001-09-15T02:14:44Z")
december, may I refer you to another of your statements: > [@](#): > > Regardless of the perfection or imperfection of my examples, if the ACLU weren’t partisan, then there would be lots and lots of cases the other way, where the ACLU opposed the groups I claim they support. Since none of us can think **any** such cases [sic], I consider my point to be proved. Emphasis added. Case closed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-hits-a-new-low/80404.md?page=8)