I’m inclined to agree with you, but I find it difficult to criticise them for fighting for some civil rights but not all civil rights.
And, for the record, although I support most of what I see the ACLU doing currently, I have had enough reservations about some of their actions in the past that I have never contributed $ to them directly. I can’t remember what those actions were right now, years later, but they left a bad taste in my mouth.
The right to privacy has been called a “derived right”, or a basic principle underlying many of the specified rights is, indeed, a right to be left alone, or a right to privacy.
What else is the right to be secure in one’s home (search & seizure)?
The right to not have to testify against oneself (self-incrimination)?
The right to exercise one’s personal religion (one’s private beliefs)?
The right to assemble (privacy of groups, large or small)?
The right of unreasonable search (what could be more about “privacy”)?
IMHO, the Constitution’s writers were thinking along these lines all along, but thought that a more specific list of rights would be better than something as ill-defined as a “right to privacy”. If true, this is the most important right of all.
As long as they do it by attacking the Boy Scouts of America, they will get a bad image.
As long as they do it by attacking the City of Los Angeles for having a historical mission on its Seal, they will get a bad image.
As long as they do it by attacking the City of San Diego and the Mt. Soledad Cross, they will get a bad image.
Now - in each of these cases you can show how the ACLU has successfully taken an interpretation of the Constitution and won their case. There are obviously plenty of people that are happy with these attacks, given the millions of dollars the ACLU has to work with. However, there are also plenty of people who have been left with a bad taste in their mouth due to the stances the ACLU has both taken AND the stances they have opted NOT to take.
That was the point of the Berkely Marine Corps Recruiting Station example. If the ACLU had made a decision to take on the case of right to accesss for the civilians trying to enter, they would have shown themselves to be more balanced. If the ACLU had taken up the case of the Abortion protestors, or at least been more public about the necessary balance between protest and abortion, they would appear more balanced. If the ACLU ever clues in that the 2nd amendment refers to the People, they would appear more balanced.
Until then, they are better described as a partisan group fighting for some civil rights. This makes them the equivalent of the Pacific Legal Foundation, but with better marketing.
It is quite preposterous to argue that the ACLU has political bias for who it defends. You cannot look through the ACLU’s cases and discern a political bias based on the defendants; they defend everyone across the spectrum. The recruiting station example is stupid because no one has yet been able to point to a colorable legal claim that the ACLU could have brought. If you want to keep using it as an example of bias, back it up.
I think the argument that they don’t do anything important or central to rights is also unsustainable. The other thread on this has died, but I listed the major cases the ACLU has worked on. Virtually every right under the BoR you now enjoy has been substantially affected by the work of the ACLU.
The jurisprudence argument is also weaker, IMHO. Only some ACLU cases advocate for penumbras, and even then it has relatively little impact on what kind of judges wear the robes.
They do have an open legal position on some issues with which many conservatives disagree. It is absolutely true that the ACLU has a position on the 2nd amendment that is not the same as the NRA’s position. In that case, I don’t really see how you can dislike them for that, since it’s not as if they are litigating on behalf of gun control (indeed, as evidenced in this thread, quite the opposite). I get the abortion issue. People that think abortion is murder should have serious issues with the ACLU. That’s just a fundamental legal and political divide. In my eyes, that’s the best answer to the thread question yet offered.
If this is the case, then there is no conflict between religion and separation of church and state as the ACLU advocates it.
As I said near the beginning of this thread, I don’t think it’s a major criticism; theres nothing wrong with supporting a subset of civil rights, or civil rights only for those whose positions you ultimately support. It irks me a bit, but then so does Oprah Winfrey, Jamie-Lynn Spears, and the last episode of the Sopranos – in other words, it’s not a giant deal.
But I also don’t think comments that portray the ACLU as a neutral, dedicated protector of all civil rights should pass without rebuttal. Like any advocacy group, they have positions and they advocate for them. I like some of their positions and don’t like others. Period.
That’s dicta, editorializing by the judge writing the opinion that carries no legal weight. The preamble to the Constitution is not a source of powers or rights and has no substantive effect.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
Haven’t been reading along too closely, have you?
Regards,
Shodan
As stated, Shylock wasn’t a lawyer. He was a stereotype of a moneylending Jew. Atticus Finch was a lawyer, though.
It has been backed up…read the whole thread. If you see a place where someone has backed it up, and you disagree with their point, go ahead and make an argument. As far as political bias, I think has been made pretty clear that they do have a bias towards some political agendas and away from others.
Did anyone here say they don’t do anything important or central to rights? I think they do a lot of good work, in certain areas.
The question the OP asked was what righties have against the ACLU. The two big areas of disagreement are gun rights and abortion, and obviously those are big issues for the right. As you say, it’s a fundamental legal and political divide. The point the OP was making was that people on the right, if they really care about civil rights, should support the ACLU…but how can they if, in an area of such importance to them, there is such a fundamental divide? How more obvious can you be in terms of answering the question as to what the righties have against the ACLU?
I started to say this, but you said it much better.
I’m not sure the Berkeley situation is very useful in establishing the ACLU’s purported bias. Should a non-profit organization with limited resources really be expected to expend them to defend access to a recruiting station of a federal entity? I would expect that any decision to weigh in on the matter would have to consider that the federal government already has ample legal resources to pursue its interest in free access to the facility.
Furthermore, is it really useful to examine the cases in which the ACLU didn’t involve itself to establish bias? I’m sure that with a little work, I could find dozens of liberal-seeming cases with which the ACLU has not involved itself. I doubt anyone would accept such a list as proof that the ACLU is right-leaning organization. I don’t think anyone should, either. Cherry-picking cases and arguing “where was the ACLU?” is evidence of little more than that the ACLU doesn’t take every case.
I’ve little doubt a strong argument could be made that the cases the ACLU chooses to take on establish some sort of bias. I just don’t see this particular instance of not taking a case as very revealing.
In a nod to the OP’s question: stoptheaclu.com’s Top Ten Reasons to Stop the ACLU is pretty revealing, and (poorly) echoes many of the arguments already made. My take is that much of the anti-ACLU sentiment originates from a selective consideration of the cases defending those who are disliked by the person who holds the sentiment.
Funny that you should insult me while also being dead wrong. Funny, but not surprising.
Your link does absolutely nothing to establish that the ACLU had a legal claim they could have brought in CA. Feel free to try again.
If it has been backed up, it should be pretty easy to just link me to the post that outlines the legal argument the ACLU could make. Take your time.
Which is probably why I called it the best answer. But I can still refute other answers that are not so good.
…regarding the ACLU’s legal battles , against the evil forces of the City of Pawtucket, RI. The city persisted in the horrible crime of setting a Christmas creche on city-owned property!
The horrible, grave threat to the citizens of Pawtucket, was ended, when brave ACLU lawyers stopped the hideous practice!
Hyperbole aside, if it’s illegal, it’s illegal.
Here you go. For that matter, they don’t even have to get involved in a legal proceeding…all they need to do if they want to show they have no bias is to have a spokesperson go on some of the cable news shows to say that, as a public advocacy group, they are not happy about the civil rights violations going on, and they expect the city of Berkeley to treat all citizens equally.
Well, sure, and there are a few answers in this thread that I think are a little on the weak side. But IMO, the two areas cited are reason enough for the righties to have an issue with the ACLU.
There weren’t any civil rights violations going on by the city of Berkely.
Oh, sure, if some protester is clearly violating the law, it’s perfectly ok for the police to stand around and do nothing at my expense.
The police have discretion.
And as far as I know, none of the so-called “victims” in his case have accused the city itself of violating their rights. Am I wrong?
I don’t know if you’re wrong or not. My guess is that they don’t care to pursue it. But that doesn’t mean their rights weren’t violated. If you worked in a building that had a Planned Parenthood clinic in it, you were prevented from entering the building by protesters, and the police stood there and did nothing, wouldn’t you think your rights were violated? You might not believe you had enough damage to bother pursuing it in the courts, but that doesn’t mean your rights weren’t violated. If it was a big, national news story, the ACLU could and very well might come out and say, “hey, we dont agree with how these protesters and the local police force prevented Diogenes the Cynic from entering his place of business. This is an unacceptable method of protest, which is violating the civil rights of innocent people.” You wouldn’t have to make a complaint at all for them to take that kind of a stand.