Laws Enforcing Immigration Policies Only Allowed at Federal Level

[Bridget_Burke]

@LonesomePolecat

The difference is that the NRA and the AARP are up front about what they’re doing and what they’re after. The ACLU claims they’re only defending civil liberties as set forth in the Constitution when in fact they’re using civil liberties as a cover for radical political and social changes and use the courts to bypass any sort of actual democratic process. It’s not terrribly different from racial supremacists claiming to be concerned about state’s rights when in fact what they’re promoting is racial supremacy.

Perhaps the Immigrant Menace is threatening your civil liberties. Perhaps you need to sue one of the cities aiding & abetting this Evil. Ask the ACLU for help. (They generally don’t take up crusades without being asked.)

The ACLU has defended the Klan. Surely they can help you. If they refuse to do so–let us know why.

I agree that using the courts to bypass the “actual democratic process” is a bad idea. Look at the Bozo the Supremes sent to DC in 2000!

(Another one thanking you about the reminder to re-up with the ACLU.)

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@LonesomePolecat

The difference is that the NRA and the AARP are up front about what they’re doing and what they’re after. The ACLU claims they’re only defending civil liberties as set forth in the Constitution when in fact they’re using civil liberties as a cover for radical political and social changes and use the courts to bypass any sort of actual democratic process. It’s not terrribly different from racial supremacists claiming to be concerned about state’s rights when in fact what they’re promoting is racial supremacy.

But the ACLU is up front about their purpose, too. It’s always been perfectly clear to me that they are fighting for radical political and social changes as profound as freedom of speech, gay and lesbian rights, reproductive freedom, etc. One thing they dont claim to fight for is federal preemption. Which is why they dont bring suit against every community with a sanctuary ordinance.

The suit brought a number of causes of action including privacy, due process, and equal protection. One of them happened to be federal pre-emption. I don`t see anything at all hypocritical about the ACLU here.

[AskNott]

Lonesome Polecat, you really should do some more research about the ACLU, if you believe the things you have been saying.

No, the line makes sense because it points out the fundamental hypocrisy of liberals who want the law scrupulously enforced when the law jibes with their ideology and ignored when it doesn’t.

The ACLU backed up right-wing radio guy Rush Limbaugh over confiscation of his medical records. Rush would laugh on your tie if you called him a liberal.

…The ACLU claims they’re only defending civil liberties as set forth in the Constitution when in fact they’re using civil liberties as a cover for radical political and social changes and use the courts to bypass any sort of actual democratic process. …

Actually, no. The ACLU has defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL, a heavily Jewish town. They have defended the rights of Christian people arrested for preaching on the sidewalks. They are even backing one of the wacky anti-gay Phelps clan. She was arrested for stomping (dancing?) on a US flag. Just about anything you can do with a flag is an act of political expression, protected by the 1st Amendment. It doesn’t matter who the defendant is, if you mess with civil liberties, you’ll have to answer to the ACLU.

As for “bypass[ing] any sort of democratic process,” the ACLU has a long history of defending voting rights. Conservative president Dwight D. Eisenhower richly praised the ACLU for protecting the US Constitution.

Lonesome Polecat, you didn’t have enough information to condemn the ACLU the way you did.