That post does not make a colorable legal argument. I’m sorry. It is written by a non-lawyer who does not understand these issues. If you don’t believe me, ask Bricker. I’m confident that he will tell you the same thing, which is that none of those entities can be sued (with any likelihood of success) on the grounds described.
They don’t really do that kind of thing. They do legislative work and litigation work. They generally have small media departments that don’t touch issues they aren’t litigating because they have their hands plenty full. And, in any case, private citizens preventing the assembly of other private citizens is decidedly not in the scope of what the ACLU does. They will argue about whether a government action that affects how private citizens interact is lawful, but that is, for obvious reasons, entirely different.
It is worth adding that people should really take a look at Shodan’s link. Read it, and then come back and tell me the ACLU is biased about these issues.
And unless you add some pretty meaty facts to the hypothetical, it’s correct that none of those potential defendants are in much danger. For example, if we imagine that the plaintiff could allege that the “Pink Panthers” are engaging in some sort of aggregate activity that constitutes extortionate acts which create a pattern of racketeering activity, for example, we might find grounds for a private RICO suit. But the record would have prove robbery or extortion, which our hypothetical does not suggest. And there is no legal duty for the police to “enforce the law,” although if their actions in aggregate were designed to deprive someone of their civil rights under color of law, we might imagine a § 1983 suit. Again, though, the example does not allege these facts.
The link in question was not presented as evidence of bias. It was presented as legal arguments the ACLU could have made, but chose not to. You did notice that it was a legal brief, didn’t you?
Except that it is. The Supreme Court is full of shit on this one. The Court is shamefully loathe to enforce the Establishment Clause the way it should. I know that technically, if they say it’s legal it’s legal, but the ACLU was still legally correct in challenging that and the Court just pussed out on making the right ruling.
C’mon. You and I both bitch from time to time about how things ought to be, but in the face of a clear ruling that something is legal, you accept that is so.
You may then work to make it not so, but that is another matter entirely.
You continue with your self-righteous attitude despite the fact that not only does your link not provide legal arguments that could have been used in CA, it also serves to establish that the ACLU has taken both sides of the abortion protestor issue depending on the degree to which the regulation affects free speech.
If you think that link provides legal arguments usable in CA, please, point them out to us.
Again, I call for everyone to thoroughly read the link. It is a great example of ACLU’s unbiased approach.
I cannot find the answer to this question. But either way, I think Scheidler is plenty distinguishable from the hypothetical case in which the ACLU would get involved in the CA incident.
The link you cited leads to an amicus brief filed by the ACLU in support of an abortion protestor who was challenging a Colorado law which limited her right to free speech.
Though you did not provide it for the bias debate, it is extremely relevant to that debate. This is an example of the ACLU litigating on behalf of pro-life forces.
It entirely fails at the purpose for which you did provide it. None of the arguments the ACLU offered against the buffer zone are in any way relevant to the sort of arguments the ACLU would make on behalf of hypothetical CA litigants. The critical difference, which you’ve apparently failed to grasp, is that in the cited brief the ACLU is making a First Amendment argument. As you may not be aware, the First Amendment restricts government suppression of speech and peaceful assembly. Your best assertion would be that the police inaction in CA is government action to suppress speech. That critical lynchpin–even if legally accurate–is nowhere defended in the link you cite. And further, all of the posters with any knowledge of the law who have weighed in have rejected that as a colorable legal claim.
Instead of poking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala, why don’t you paste for us the text from the link that you think proves your point.
Okay, I’m missing the part where I should care if a criminal invites a policeman in and said officer finds a gun linking the criminal to a murder.
I love stupid criminals; they make law enforcement easier.
But in reality there are 3 outcomes:
Refuse search because it’s a waste of time since I’m clean.
Refuse search because I’m a criminal or harboring one.
Allow search because I have a relative/visitor who’s a troublemaker and I want them and their bullshit out of my house.
Are you claiming that if old Mrs. Jones lets the cops in, they find a weapon tied to a murder, that they are going to immediately arrest Mrs. Jones? Aren’t they going to check the prints on the gun?
Personally I’m not going to let them in because I know it’s a waste of their time; there’s nothing to find. I suspect people like Mrs. Jones might let police look because they suspect a relative is up to shenanigans and they don’t want it in their home.
**Holy Shit, It has taken me 2 days to do all this research and this thread is still plugging along, I will check back from time to time to see what shakes out of the tree with this post. So, I’ll seeya in the funny papers.
Thanks for your input, Diogenes the Cynic.
I said I didn’t have time then to search for other sources to confirm reliability. I have completed that work and my findings are below (bolded). Other cites are italicized. My general comments are at bottom of post. “Diogenes” rants are excused as I hope that mine were, it just goes to show how religion is so powerful and why it has been around for 1000’s of years. And the persecution goes on.**
They have been and are now being denied the freedoms that they were comfortable with in the past. Times have changed, and we are where we are.
A Greensboro judge ruled against the Islamic program challengers since, he said, it was not mandatory and there was no evidence that the university planned to force Islamic study on students. Nuff said. See http://www.johnlocke.org/news_columns/display_story.html?id=391
**No comment. You people have discussed that one in this thread. **
California is into that touchy feely sort of stuff and that is Californians choice. Role-playing just is a bit over the top for my tastes. I can’t find any evidence that jihad was play acted, except from the testimony of the plaintiff, but given children’s penchant for rebelliousness and creativity it was most likely done and more than likely without the teachers knowledge.
Doesn’t seem to reek of horseshit, The California State Board of Education seems to cover all the religions. Note this is the 2008 website and not 2002. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/hstgrade7.asp
The website is truthorfiction.com. The judge exists but I am not going to take the time and pay $ to retrieve the case info. The Islam teaching curriculum is given at the CA Board of Education. It seems this is a true incident.
Below is how Christianity is attacked by the SCOTUS finding on separation of church and state. On June 25, 1997 the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was found unconstitutional . All quite legal, mind you. Which allowed Guidelines, Religious Expression in Public School to be released by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
Had the RFRA not been struck down the above case and others like it would have been decided against the plaintiffs? Below are excerpts investigating the rationale behind the Supreme Court’s decision and seeks to find out why so many interest groups feel that there is a need for legislation like the RFRA.
You will note that this is a perfect example how SCOTUS can make law, as I remember, was the topic of some discussion in this thread. Also it points out how the make up of SCOTUS (constructionist and revisionist) can affect how we live in the span of 24 hours.
**The ACLU started this whole redefinition of the freedom of religion. The ACLU assisted in the preparation of the Guidelines, Religious Expression in Public School and then the revisionist SCOTUS found RFRA to be unconstitutional forcing public schools and all governments to become totally secular. The ACLU interfered and pulled the rug out from under the religious right.
As to “vacuous rightie complaints and barrel scraping” you don’t know what you are talking about. The righties were quite happy and could live their lives with minimal government interference during RFRA. This is what righties have against the ACLU. This is my the answer to the OP.
Now that the law is the way it is I predict the following:
A. Their will come a major Public school tax revolt based on the grounds that the people have a right to educate their children based on their religion. I see nothing that could prevent them from winning such a case based on freedom of religion. But I am no constitutional law lawyer.
B. The cost of public schools is going to skyrocket for the cities, as they have large multi-cultural populations. Using the NYC Arabic language school where it is cultural as much as Arabic then it follows every culture will want its own publicly funded school. How about a ‘ghetto’ language school. Broward County FL now has a Hebrew Public school.
C. The multi-cultural schools funding will then have to come from higher federal taxes. You may want to pay those taxes. I don’t.
The Anal ACLU could not leave well enough alone. But I don’t blame them for wanting to get hate spitting atheists off their back.
There is a difference between Arab Studies and Religious indoctrination. The irrational fear that Arab equals evil is based on a lack of knowledge, fundamentalist propaganda, and Christian supremacy which serves to undermine intellectual growth and cultural understanding.
Khalil Gibran International Academy mission statement
The book assigned by UNC was written by a scholar: Michael Sells. It is a scholarly work presented to students attending an institution of higher learning. Incidentally, universities are typically places where cultural diversity and understanding are valued not rejected. If you want to know nothing more than Anglo-Christian dogma, a top tier university is probably not the best place for you.
I presume you are referring to Ebonics? Maybe you are implying that poverty has a specific culture and language? Either way, it is a distasteful and absurd assertion.
What you may fail to recognize is that tax funded magnet schools and religious schools are all part of G.W. Bush’s faith based initiatives/school reform. It is the push to de-fund public schools under the guise of school choice. The Christian right doesn’t seem to have a problem when faith based initiatives benefit Christian schools. You can’t have it both ways. The ACLU litigates to uphold individual rights protected under the Constitution. It may seem like an assault on Christians because there has been a thirty year assault on the Constitution by right wing fundamentalists. It has been the fundamentalists fighting to change the definition of religious freedom, not the ACLU.
For what it’s worth, I’ve worked a bit with the Khalil Gibran Academy on some legal issues. The parents of students there come from many different ethnic backgrounds. Indeed, the school’s interim principal was a Jewish woman. Like any other school in NY, it will accommodate the religious needs of its diverse students. As far as I know, they follow the same schedule as the rest of NYC public schools.