I stand corrected. Did any of the people prevented from entering contact the ACLU?
If the ACLU cared one whit about those folks, they would have been all over it without having to get a phone call.
But again…when does free speech cross the line to harassment?
Then I would agree with you that the ACLU did not volunteer their services in this case as they have in others. But as has been pointed out upthread, the ACLU has represented rights of people with whom they would not ordinarily be considered politically aligned.
I do not know - does the ACLU always wait to be contacted?
(the answer to that is no, by the way).
You are missing my point, though. The point is that, if they are not showing bias, then they would care JUST AS MUCH about people being harassed by war protesters as they are about people being harrassed by abortion protesters. Wouldn’t you consider physically blocking someone’s access to their place of business be considered harrassment?
The point was made that they have helped Fred Phelps, so obviously, they spread their help around a bit. I just happen to see a bias against abortion protesters, and towards war/gun protesters.
So the ACLU should butt out of cases unless someone involved asks them to intervene - and then they always will. Is that what you are implying?
So all the abortion protesters needed to do was ask nicely, and the ACLU would have leapt to their aid, instead of filing briefs against them. Right?
Regards,
Shodan
If you already know the answer, do you really need me to respond?
I have not disagreed with either of those points. I just don’t think that making them negates mine. Protesters blocking entrances, regardless of the nature of the business is wrong. Whether the ACLU volunteers to represent those people who were barred access or someone solicits their help against being barred access…are their policies not the same? Should they have to jump forward at every instance?
It would depend on state law, I suppose. I don’t think you can get writ of mandamus for a discretionary action, and I would think any police action is discretionary. But maybe not. A brief search through CA law didn’t turn up any cases of compelled police actions under a writ of mandate (which is what they call it there).
Is there a Constitutional right to join the military? Abortion is a right protected under the Constitution, but as far as I know no individual has a constitutional right to join the armed services. Do you see how one case is not like the other?
Nope - but thanks for doing it anyway!
Since this thread is about “What do righties have against the ACLU,”…
The ACLU APPEARS to pick and choose its battles with an eye towards more left oriented activities.
They acted AGAINST anti-abortion protesters, while acting FOR others. That stands out to the righties.
They acted FOR Wiccans to be recognized by the military, while acting AGAINST the Boy Scouts using military land for camping. That stands out to the righties as well.
They ignore the people in the 2nd Amendment. It would be great to see them change their actions if the Supremes go the way we think they are going this June.
I will state again that I consider the ACLU to be positive net contributor to our nation. However, there is plenty in the negative column in my opinion. Some have argued that I shouldn’t be upset with them, since they only act within the confines of the law as decided by the courts. However, their sheer size and money convinces some groups to give in rather than fight. In addition, just because they win does not make it good.
In the meantime, righties can also donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation to help cover some additional Rights that are oft trampled.
From post #183
Excerpts taken from
Nor was he an “arch-villain,” let alone “Shakespeare’s great arch-villain,” (which title probably goes to Iago, but I think Aron the Moor has a good claim on it). In many ways, he’s a sympathetic character, who has been abused and betrayed until his desire for vengeance subsumes his moral sense.
While I’m at it, the link Digital Stimulus gave explaining the “Kill all the lawyers” joke is a bit facile. On the surface, it’s just what it appears to be: a populist statement against lawyers. But consider the context in which it is given: Cade is promising “seven half-penny loafs for a penny,” and, “the three hoop’d pot shall have ten hoops.” These are plainly ridiculous promises. Sure, they sound good (Well, I’m assuming a bit about the second one: I’m not sure why someone would want ten hoops on a pot) but a moment’s thought makes it obvious that they’re completely impractical. A society arranged to his liking could not function. “Kill all the lawyers” is of a piece with that. It sounds good, because yeah, lawyers can be a pain in the neck. But they’re also necessary to the proper functioning of society. If you killed all the lawyers, there’d be no one left to run the system of government. The line, like most everything Shakespeare wrote, is meant to be read on several levels. On one level, it’s just as it appears to be: a general gripe about lawyers. But when considered in its context, it’s clear that it’s also a recognition that, however annoying lawyers might be in practice, they’re still necessary in principle.
There isn’t a Right to assembly? To go where one pleases? the ACLU fights for access rights on a regular basis.
Right. It is, and I’m not aruging with that, either.
Not necessarily, no. But the cases they choose to get involved in shows their bias. As I said earlier, that’s fine…it’s their right to do whatever they want to do. Once again, all I’m trying to do is answer the OP as to what the problem some righties have with the ACLU. The only reason the ACLU might WANT to jump forward at every instance is only if they care about being perceived as having bias.
No, I don’t see that, because people DO have the Constitutional right to enter their place of employment, whatever that place might be.
Here’s the thing. And I may be being a bit idealistic; I fully admit, but hear me out. Not all conservatives are against abortion. Not all conservatives are religious. Not all conservatives are unbothered by the idea of the line between church and state being blurred. Does it need to be perceived as an anti-conservative bias instead of what it is…a bias against an infringement against our civil rights? The fact that those who are proponents of those groups are usually conservative does not mean conservatives as a whole are being attacked.
Great point - for the thread I was sticking to an un-defined “rightie.” The issue is that in some of ACLU’s activities, their fight for the right of one person often steps on someone else.
The ACLU wins and the Scouts lose their cheap lease at the docks. The ACLU argues that they fought for the rights of atheists and gays to not support a religious organization. The results is also, however, that a bunch of young boys and girls (girls are part of Sea Scouts) lost their location. In some cases, the Sea base shuts down permanently without a donor stepping up. The ACLU did not win against an evil government entity, they took away a resource for some kids.
Justified? Possibly.
Legal? Absolutely.
Constitutional? Yes, under current interpretation.
Making enemies? You got it!
What do you think the ACLU could have sued the city of Berkely for?
Also, who asked them? They can’t sue if they don’t have a client.
All over what? Who do you think they should have sued and who woulkd their client have been?
How is that a violation of anyone’s civil rights?
What would their standing have been? They can’t sue anyone without a client. If no one asks for their help, their’s nothing they can do.