So, your kid should stop asking for cookies when he has exceeded his “little daddy’s” limit. Momita has set the same limit we presume.
Lets say because of eating all those cookies your big kid now plays to hard on the see-saw hurting a small 1st grader. You as the Papito and your momita could agree to reduce the number of cookies or teach him to not play with fragile kids but only play with the big kids or play very gently or do nothing allowing him to run amok.
Now comes your 1st grader crying because a big kid sat on the see-saw, preventing your 1st grader from getting off and go back to class, until the big kid lost interest and decided to go bother some one else. Your are the Papito, what would you do? You would try to set boundary limits on the big kid too.
The ACLU is the big “kid”. It is not private actor as it has a papito, its membership, who has set reasonable boundary limits. The membership has told ACLU not to play with another big kid, the US. Congress. The US congress has paid a Chaplin using taxpayer money to open each session with a prayer since 1789.
Essentially the membership does not have the balls to stand behind their principals and tell the ACLU to work for government change, in the big kid playground but irresponsibly lets the ACLU run amok.
Well, yes, in the same sense that perusal of Nazi propaganda will give a good understanding of why people indoctrinated thereby would be worried about the International Jewish Conspiracy.
You started with the child analogy, I merely expanded it with hypothetical situations and mapped those situations to the ACLU/member/defendant relationship.
The ACLU is a big bratty kid and needs to have the crap beat out of it again until it learns to see-saw with respect,** again**.
.
You’re mapping was off-kilter and based on a bad premise anyway.
What do you mean by “beat the crap out of?”
Could you also give an example of how the ACLU has ever harmed you or tried to interfere with any of your rights. I’m seeing some of the typical ACLU bashing from you, but I’m not seing you justify it with any specifics.
Translation: You have less ability to strong-arm your neighbors (at least, unless and until you choose to grow a pair and do so in person).
You already have the ability to refrain from doing whatever it is you want them to prohibit. (If it’s an issue of wanting to excuse yourself by saying “sorry, I would if I could, but the guvmint won’t let me”, see above re growing a pair.)
No, the Founders of the Republic (who rejected “democracy” as the mob rule of two wolves and a lamb voting on the menu) did that.
I don’t know that that’s really a good analogy, because there was no International Jewish Conspiracy, so the people opposed to it were opposed to a fantasy, but the ACLU really does want to limit things like school sponsored prayer and the portrayal of explicitly religious symbols in public spaces. You might agree with the ACLU that there the Constitution does and should ban those things, but its opponents don’t agree with that. They have a different reading of the first amendment than you do, so for them, the ACLU is backing an incorrectreading of the amendment.
A distinction without a difference – a case based on the Constitution in which the defense argues that the “illegal” act is Constitutonally protected inherently amounts to a trial of the law’s constitutionality. For example, if Congress passed a law “Nobody can dispute SteveMB’s statements on the SDMB”, you insisted on doing so anyway, and found yourself on trial, the court case would necessarily hinge upon the question of whether Congress had the power to pass such a law in the first place, and the courts would (one hopes) rule that it did not and that the law is therefore void.
You don’t get to decry judicial activism and then buttress your argument using one of American history’s most egregious examples thereof.
Well, then, if you believe that the rule of law should be overturned and replaced by majoritarian mob rule (which is the “school of thought” expressed by that quote in its original context), your arguments are more understandable.
They are, however, irrelevant to the governance of a nation whose Founders and Constitution decisively reject that viewpoint.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about yourself, here. That you actually believe that all lawyers should be killed? A slogan isn’t necessarily a “school of thought.” And calling it your school of thought doesn’t really add to your credibility.
Also, the way you quote, it seems to imply that it was Shakespeare’s belief that lawyers should be killed. All evidence points to the conclusion that Shakespeare quite liked his lawyers and kept them well employed.
[hijack]
Y’know, I was gonna post something about that also. But I decided to google first, not being all that familiar with that particular play. Lo and behold, I came across this analysis, which seems pretty convincing that the quote really is a slam on lawyers. Again, I’ve not read the original, and so haven’t done my own analysis.
This hijack should probably be in it’s own thread, but I thought I’d throw it in here to have on record at the point where it came up.
[/hijack]
I’m frankly surprised that you paid so little attention to the news. The announced plan was for cops to do precisely that – go around knocking on people’s doors and requesting permission to search. At least that was the plan until opposition (provided in part by the ACLU) forced DC to back down:
My impression is that the argument goes something like this: “The ACLU is fighting for rights to people I don’t agree with politically, therefore my rights are being infringed upon,” without actually recognizing the fact that the same rights are being afforded to everyone.