ACLU

[BlueHair]

I have always wondered why conservatives hate the ACLU. It is strange to hate an organization that fights every day to maintain our civil rights. Here is a link to a letter they sent to every member of the 111th Congress:

http://www.aclu.org/images/general/a...e466_38303.pdf

[il Padrino Ute]

I have always wondered why conservatives hate the ACLU. It is strange to hate an organization that fights every day to maintain our civil rights. Here is a link to a letter they sent to every member of the 111th Congress:

http://www.aclu.org/images/general/a...e466_38303.pdf

Probably because the only times we really hear about the ACLU is when they are supporting the rights of someone who committed a heinous crime or are filing a lawsuit on behalf of what is seen as a liberal cause.

I'm sure that liberals hate when the ACLU sides with what is considered a conservative cause as well, though I can't think of anything conservative that the ACLU has supported at the moment.

[DU Ute]

I have always wondered why conservatives hate the ACLU. It is strange to hate an organization that fights every day to maintain our civil rights. Here is a link to a letter they sent to every member of the 111th Congress:

http://www.aclu.org/images/general/a...e466_38303.pdf

Is that letter supposed to endear the ACLU to us?

[RobinFinderson]

The ACLU is pro-abortion rights and leaves gun rights to the NRA. Those are the main reasons. But truthfully, many conservatives don't really care about civil liberties.

[il Padrino Ute]

Is that letter supposed to endear the ACLU to us?

I just read that letter and have to ask why the ACLU didn't bring up activist judges (or did I miss that?), the Fairness Doctrine or voter registration fraud.

Perhaps there's your answer Blue Hair?

[il Padrino Ute]

The ACLU is pro-abortion rights and leaves gun rights to the NRA. Those are the main reasons. But truthfully, many conservatives don't really care about civil liberties.

So says the commie.

[BlueHair]

Probably because the only times we really hear about the ACLU is when they are supporting the rights of someone who committed a heinous crime or are filing a lawsuit on behalf of what is seen as a liberal cause.

I'm sure that liberals hate when the ACLU sides with what is considered a conservative cause as well, though I can't think of anything conservative that the ACLU has supported at the moment.

I think they do a good job of protecting the constitution. Whether the causes are liberal or conservative shouldn't matter. The question should be, "Is the constitution being trampled on?". We should be happy that people are allowed to do things that piss us off.

Usually, religious people get pissed because the ACLU likes to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. I have seen many cases where they fight for the religious rights of individuals.

[BlueHair]

I just read that letter and have to ask why the ACLU didn't bring up activist judges (or did I miss that?), the Fairness Doctrine or voter registration fraud.

Perhaps there's your answer Blue Hair?

Not really. They can't put every issue on a two page letter. Was there something in the letter that you don't like?

I don't think there is an activist judge problem. Legislators just get mad when their unconstitutional legislation gets overturned. The legislators should take a look at the constitution before they make a law.

[BlueHair]

Is that letter supposed to endear the ACLU to us?

No. I just find it strange that an organization whose sole purpose is to preserve the constition is unpopular.

[pellegrino]

I think they do a good job of protecting the constitution. Whether the causes are liberal or conservative shouldn't matter. The question should be, "Is the constitution being trampled on?". We should be happy that people are allowed to do things that piss us off.

Usually, religious people get pissed because the ACLU likes to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. I have seen many cases where they fight for the religious rights of individuals.

I think in general the ACLU are selective in what areas of the constitution they protect. By privileging those aspects and supporting, it gives the appearance that they disagree with fundamental constitutional rights like the second amendment. A prominent member of the local ACLU chapter does a weekly public radio show on the law and the news. He often calls out his colleagues in their selective support of certain civil liberties, particularly the second amendment.

[venkman]

No. I just find it strange that an organization who's sole purpose is to preserve the constition is unpopular.

Their STATED purpose. Many don't take their stated purpose at face value, but rather think it's cover for their real agenda.

Look into their founder Roger Baldwin and maybe you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. Yeah, that was a long time ago, but I can't help but think that their idea of protecting the constitution is a bit different than mine.

Yes, I've agreed with positions they've took from time to time, but my idea of defending the constitution goes beyond protecting pornographers, NAMBLA and removing God from anywhere near the public arena. Why no defense of the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments?

Sorry, I'm not buying this "defenders of the constitution" bit. To truly defend the constitution, an organization needs to vigorously fight the march towards statism/collectivism/socialism/fascism (whatever you want to call it) we're currently experiencing. The ACLU ain't it.

[venkman]

I just read that letter and have to ask why the ACLU didn't bring up activist judges (or did I miss that?), the Fairness Doctrine or voter registration fraud.

Perhaps there's your answer Blue Hair?

Fairness Doctrine, now that's a good one. Barry and his minions are trying to implement it in sort of a back-door way.

[RockyBalboa]

I'm not a fan of any group, much less one that so staunchly defends NAMBLA.

I'll let you others google that acronym to find out what it means.

Call me what you will, but I don't believe that organization (NAMBLA) has a right to exist.

[venkman]

Ok, so I took a look at the link. I do agree with some of those positions, particularly in the "limits on government power" section.

[BlueHair]

Their STATED purpose. Many don't trust take their stated purpose at face value, but rather think it's cover for their real agenda.

Look into their founder Roger Baldwin and maybe you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. Yeah, that was a long time ago, but I can't help but think that their idea of protecting the constitution is a bit different than mine.

Yes, I've agreed with positions they've took from time to time, but my idea of defending the constitution goes beyond protecting pornographers, NAMBLA and removing God from anywhere near the public arena. Why no defense of the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments?

Sorry, I'm not buying this "defenders of the constitution" bit. To truly defend the constitution, an organization needs to vigorously fight the march towards statism/collectivism/socialism/fascism (whatever you want to call it) we're currently experiencing. The ACLU ain't it.

Okay. I understand your point about not vigorously fighting for every amendment, but what cases do you disagree with? I would argue that any fighting for any amendment is much better than nothing.

I think you are overstating the point of removing God from anywhere near the public arena. In fact, they won a case againt the military to allow families of fallen soldiers to place the religious symbol of their choice on the military headstone. They vigorously fight for the individual's right to practice their religion, but oppose government promoting a particular type of religion. I know people got all worked up about the Ten Commandment displays, but you can bet if the government starting placing Muslim scripture all over courthouses, there would be an uproar.