Yes I thought about that after posting, thanks.
The ACLU should sue the DC police for allowing the ACLU to meddle and not go forward with the “safe House” program as quickly as possible thereby reducing the DC death from the guns they were attempting to sequester.
this quite ain’t right either but I have only 5 minuts to edit thsi post.
That’s just how black people do camping. 
So, the ACLU, in order to better facilitate civil liberties, should help the police go into homes to take away guns?
I’m thinking the ACLU is going to have a hard time pleasing everyone on this one.
Whaaa…? How did the ACLU stop the DC police from implementing their program? Did a judge issue an order at the request of the ACLU? Did the ACLU barricade private homes preventing the police from entering? Or are you seriously suggesting that the people of the District of Columbia are so easily led, they’re not able to make up their own minds about the program and the ACLU handing out some pamphlets and talking to citizens about their constitutional rights will stop everyone from exercising the option of using the program? You’re not, are you?
I agree with you that a lot of the time the ACLU has a kind of hypersensitivity about purported violations of individual rights that doesn’t always take into account practical considerations or the societal interest as a whole. But, but even though I don’t always agree with the stances of the ACLU, I can’t bring myself to get too worked up about them taking those stances because somebody’s got to do it. Having them around means, even if they don’t prevail, that at least the point of view is being expressed and will be taken into consideration.
And coming up with wise governmental policy isn’t the ACLU’s job. They’re an interest group, and it’s their job to make sure their special interest is represented. Getting annoyed at them is like getting annoyed at AARP for opposing Social Security reform.
No this is correct
The victims 5th amendment rights were violated. Of course the ACLU would have to both the plaintiff and a co-defendant.
We digress. The point is how does the ACLU view the preamble? Is not the purpose of the preamble to guide the interpretation and subsequent enforcement of the balance of the document?
Is feather bedding though, because by law they are entitled to compensation for legal services whether they win or lose.
Yours is not an argument remarkable for its cogency.
No. They are entitled to negotiate a fee from their putative client, or get paid from ACLU coffers, but there is no law that recompenses them for an unsuccessful (or successful) fight.
Nope. The Fifth Amendment does not guarantee the right not to be a victim of a crime.
Have you ever stopped to consider whether you have any idea what you’re talking about?
The ACLU has not interfered with anything. All it did was let people know what their rights were. They basically just reminded people that they were allowed to say no to a search by the cops.
How you get from that that the ACLU is interfering with anyone’s 5th Amendment rights is beyond me. Did yiou intend that as parody?
I’ll take that whole, rambling discourse as a concession that you can’t cite an example of the ACLU interfering with your rights.
My operative phrase is “as quickly as possible”. According to the previous posts, the ACLU interjected themselves into the process, having already, I presume, been reviewed by DC’s own legal consul and not found wanting, thereby delaying its implementation. The ACLU was not invited to comment.
Read the post carefully please as I am an engineer and try to boil things down to as few words as possible.
Does “Whaaa” suggest that a pit thread should be started, titled “dangling participles love’m or hate’m.
In this country, the “American Rule” provides that each party to litigation is responsible to pay its own attorney’s fees unless specific authority is granted by statute or a contract allows the assessment of those fees against the other party. This contrasts with the “English Rule,” under which the losing party pays the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees. Our rule is based on the premise that society would suffer if a person were unwilling to pursue a meritorious claim merely because, if they lost, they would have to pay the opposing party’s expenses. There is, however, an exception to this principle under PL 94-559, the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney Fee Act (42 USC, Section 1988).
Oh, please do.
I think that the bottom-line answer to the OP is that, if the ACLU is weighing the rights of one person against another, they will tend to take the side that is in line with the opinions of those on the left. Your abortion protest example is a good one. Here, you are weighing one group’s right to free speech against another group’s right to enter the abortion clinic. In my opinion, as long as the entrance is not being impeded, then it’s really not about their right to enter the clinic, but rather their right not to be made to feel bad about it. That, I think is a pretty weak “right,” when compared to the right to free speech.
I would think that, if the ACLU wants a buffer zone around abortion clinics, then they should also desire a buffer zone around, say, military recruiting offices, so that anyone desiring to go into one without being called a murderer could do so, but I’m guessing that hasn’t been high on the ACLU’s agenda. If I’m wrong about that, please correct me because I don’t know for sure.
see this
In a democratic society, though, citizens are allowed, and even encouraged, to comment on and influence the laws and policies the government is proposing. IF the ACLU believes the policy is unwise or wrong, they’re within their rights to object to it.
Put as simply as possible, a suit against the ACLU claiming that it violated the fifth amendment wouldn’t win, both because the ACLU isn’t a government agency and can not violate the fifth amendment, and also because the delay in the passing of legislation or implementation of policy isn’t a fifth amendment violation.
Please provide a cite where the ACLU defended a supposed right to use a park or library as a toilet, or failed to prevent a teacher from bringing a classroom to order. I seriously doubt any of these things have ever happened. It is against the law to defecate on the floor of a library, and the ACLU can’t help you if you do. You do, however, have to tolerate smelly people in public places. There’s no law against being smelly. If you don’t like it, you can go to a private place.
This does, however illustrate the OP’s question"'what do the righties have against the ACLU?" Answer: a bunch of imaginary scenarios that invoke the fear of the disorderly lower classes.
Right on! I am in complete agreement, ( re: feelings)… I note that many posters use that word to justify their position. The subject of rights has to be looked upon without feeling but with passion as below from Jefferson
And, and this is the biggy! Exercise of Free Speech is intended by the speaker to invoke feelings by virtue of the speaker’s passion for the subject. If the listener did not feel something then why would the speaker even flap his lips.
Mm-hm. Are you a law student?
The ACLU gets far more requests for assistance than they could ever handle. They don’t need to take up a case just to apply for expenses.
The issue is less one of “feeling bad” than it is of intimidation.