Aclu

[BMalion]

Oh, please, I grew up in that town a non-christian, from a family of non-christians, we always felt pretty darn free.

The fact that the city seal had a cross on it was of complete non-importance to our lives, hopes and futures (as far as I could tell). Heck, without looking it up I would bet most folks would be hard-pressed to describe their own city seals.

[Achernar]

The way you said it, I thought that the city had to spend $60k on reworking all their official logos and things. Now I see that it was to pay for the ACLU’s court costs. Maybe if they had just changed it instead of filing a suit about it, it wouldn’t have cost so much.

Also, it seems that you’re saying that nobody seemed to notice or care, but this seems incorrect. According to that story, it had “been the subject of much controversy for 2 1/2 years” and caused “much public debate” and “controversy”. It was even retired, but the town voted it back in. That wouldn’t have happened if nobody cared. Of course, this is an ACLU press release, so if you have a story that contradicts it, I’ll be happy to believe it.

[BMalion]

Still looking, hmmm… I was living in California when this happened but I found this article with this sentence:

The ACLU has affidavits from five anonymous residents claiming to have "come into unwelcome contact with the city seal."

sounds like someone in my hometown was groped by the seal.

:eek:

Maybe the ACLU did us all a favor.

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by rjung *
The ACLU has worked to protect the civil liberties of all Americans, regardless of thier political views. The only reason they keep getting tarred as a “liberal” group from the Right is because some of the goals of the Right involve repealing civil rights. I would rephrase that to say they keep getting tarred and feathed as a “liberal” group because they use the court system as a legislative body.

**Consider this: after the passage of the Patriot Act, the ACLU reported that membership enrollment tripled from Republicans. Being concerned for your civil rights is a non-partisan issue. **

So there are now 3 Republicans registered? ribbing aside, your statement implies that there is a questionnaire that includes party affiliation? What’s up with that.

I don’t have a problem with the ACLU fighting for constitutional rights, I just don’t like their end run around it using the court system to interpolate the constitution to suite their desires. I don’t want to start a huge “ Separation of church and state” debate but the founding fathers made a serious attempt to explain their intentions and what we have now would have been easy for the writers to explain and define.

And I would add that the ACLU probably takes a lot of crap because their involvement is only newsworthy if it is a sensational item. I would love to pick up the paper and see them something like personal property in an imminent domain case.

[HomerIU]

To me, they seem to pick and choose which rights they champion and how vigorously. TO argue that everyone should be for the ACLU because they are trying to protect civil rights for all is ludicrous. If there were only one way to interpret the Constitution this may be true. The truth is they fight for the THEIR OWN particular interpretation of civil rights laws in the United States and vigorously advocate their own view of civil rights law in this country. They are a politicvally biased advocacy group just like any other. To argue that EVREYONE regardless of party affiliation should be for them is no more valid than stating everyone should be for PETA because we should all be for protecting the rights of animals. Its a highly liberal and, yes, libertarian organization and whenever I hear the statements that claim they are party neutral or that Republicans and Democrats alike SHOULD be for them it infuriates me.

            They do some good work, but I often disagree with their stances, mainly on the church-state issues and on some, though not all, of their anti-Patriot Act stances.

[HomerIU]

Sorry for the double post, but I also disagree completely that they only argue extreme cases where the boundaries are being pushed by the federal government. I think they pick cases to fight that aren’t at the extremes to try and push boundaries back in the direction they would like to see them go. Many times it seems they take almost pointless cases or those with very limited practical value to try and argue a larger political point.

    And yes, I also agree that they essentially use the court system to try and steer the law in new directions.  It seems at times their cases are abusive of the court system.