Another ACLU outrage

[Guest 2smart4u]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

How naive can you be. That's a PR job. But if you read it , it must be true. DUH.

[Guest Studies and Observations]

The law forbidding abortion was overturned by the Supreme Court. It did not make a new law. The Supreme Court based their decision on the right to privacy. If you do not believe there is a right to privacy you would have to believe that the government has the right to tell you what to do in your own bedroom, to tell you that you can or cannot use birth control, and that your medical records and your dicussions with lawyers and clergy are not private. None of the rights I just mentioned are included in the Constitution explicitly.

Yes and No. Row V Wade's substansive Argument wasnt about "Abortion" per se. Roe V. Wade was about a Woman having to get "Permission" from her Significant other to GET an medical procedure, in this case, an Abortion. Hence the Right to Privacy Issue. While it has been hailed as a Landmark case for Abortion, that is somewhat Disengenuous at best. The interesting thing is that Even after Roe V. Wade, some 30 years later, When I went to get a Vasectomy, 5 different Urologists told me flat-out that they wouldnt perform the procedure on me without a signed waiver from my wife. As sual this stuff only seems to work in one direction. In my Opinion...This should have been left entirely up to the people of the Individual States, and is frankly a Constitutional violation of the 10th Ammendment. Oh, and for the record Jane Roe has subsequently refudiated Abortion and regrets her decision....Something Planned Parenthood wont ever bring up. The federal Govt has once again overstepped it's bounds and intruded into an area that should be left to the Individual States..They do it ALL the time, and no one ever seems to call them on it.

[Guest You're Still An Idiot]

How naive can you be. That's a PR job. But if you read it , it must be true. DUH.

You wish, jackass.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You wish, jackass.

Jackass ?? I'm not your daddy.

[Guest Guest]

Jackass ?? I'm not your daddy.

All the little boy playground 'insults' in the world won't change the fact that you're wrong. The ACLU has defended many right-wingers, Limbaugh included. It was even reported by your favorite network's website.

No getting around it, and I'll bet you anything you won't apologize for being wrong.

[Guest Guest]

How naive can you be. That's a PR job. But if you read it , it must be true. DUH.

Just another confirmation that the States of Confusion and Denial are 'Red' States

[Guest Guest]

Jackass ?? I'm not your daddy.

But you are a Jackass!

[Guest Guest_Autonomous_*]

All the little boy playground 'insults' in the world won't change the fact that you're wrong. The ACLU has defended many right-wingers, Limbaugh included. It was even reported by your favorite network's website.

No getting around it, and I'll bet you anything you won't apologize for being wrong.

He never apologized for being a racist-

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=81687

so no, I don't expect him to apologize for being wrong this time either.

[Guest twizzler]

Paul,

You're confusing other substantive rights in the Bill of Rights with those in the (Civil War) 14th Amendment, which expressly empowers Congress to pass laws enforcing the 14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What's covered by the privileges and immunities clause? or due process? or equal protection? They're deliberately not spelled out. Congress has as important a role as the Supreme Court. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 or the American Disabilities Act of 1990 were enacted pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that "Privacy" is a substantive due process right protected by the 14th amendment. Congress could try to challenge the Court's authority under Section 5, but has never mustered the votes.

I do agree that most criticism of 14th Amendment-based rights is motivated by a results-oriented bias and not the text of the Constitution. How activist of those right wing critics!

There's a difference between enforcement and definition. How well the law is enforced defines it de facto, but not de jure.

[Guest Guest]

All the little boy playground 'insults' in the world won't change the fact that you're wrong. The ACLU has defended many right-wingers, Limbaugh included. It was even reported by your favorite network's website.

No getting around it, and I'll bet you anything you won't apologize for being wrong.

The ACLU is a LoonyLeft organization that occasionally will "defend" a conservative under the guise of

fairness. For every conservative cause they defend, there's a thousand liberal causes. Their #1 goal

is removing God from America. They want a secular society where God is taboo. They are one of the

farthest left organizations in the US. Defending Limbaugh on a minor issue hardly changes anything.

[Guest Admiral Obvious]

The ACLU is a LoonyLeft organization that occasionally will "defend" a conservative under the guise of

fairness.

There is no guise. They will defend anyone whose civil liberties (get it? American Civil Liberties Union?) they believe are being violated (and who asks for their help--I believe part of their 'philosophy' is not to get involved unless they are asked to first). The group is clearly non-partisan. Would a "Loony Left" group defend Fred Phelps (they have)?

For every conservative cause they defend, there's a thousand liberal causes. Their #1 goal

is removing God from America.

If that was true, they'd never 'form' in the first place, because "America" (speaking in terms of the government) is already, and always has been secular from the first day. See Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (which was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress, I might add).

Perhaps you're just sore because the Constitution prohibits INJECTING God INTO America, instead of just leaving it to individuals and their personal lives, as faith ought to be. As the saying goes, don't preach in school and I promise not to think in church.

They want a secular society where God is taboo.

So, to that end, they will defend a hyper-religious wackjob's right to protest the funerals of fallen American soldiers? A man who claims that all such deaths are God's vengeance for America being a society "fag enablers"? Yeah, okay, and I'm the Duchess of York. Talk about spin.

They are one of the

farthest left organizations in the US. Defending Limbaugh on a minor issue hardly changes anything.

No, it doesn't change anything. But the state that isn't changed isn't what you think it is.

[Guest Speedy G.]

The ACLU is a LoonyLeft organization that occasionally will "defend" a conservative under the guise of

fairness. For every conservative cause they defend, there's a thousand liberal causes. Their #1 goal

is removing God from America. They want a secular society where God is taboo. They are one of the

farthest left organizations in the US. Defending Limbaugh on a minor issue hardly changes anything.

You say that, but to you everyone you don't agree with is a "Loony Leftie." Can you cite a single example of the ACLU turning away a meritorious case that would have put them on the side of a right winger? Of course you can't.

[Guest Guest]

The ACLU is a LoonyLeft organization that occasionally will "defend" a conservative under the guise of

fairness. For every conservative cause they defend, there's a thousand liberal causes. Their #1 goal

is removing God from America. They want a secular society where God is taboo. They are one of the

farthest left organizations in the US. Defending Limbaugh on a minor issue hardly changes anything.

If they're going to protect us from a bunch of sanctimonious, self-righteous, Bible-thumping fundies please, tell me where to mail my contribution to such a worthy cause.

[Guest Guest]

You say that, but to you everyone you don't agree with is a "Loony Leftie." Can you cite a single example of the ACLU turning away a meritorious case that would have put them on the side of a right winger? Of course you can't.

WELL DUH !!! Cite you an example of something that's never occurred. That sounds like

Loony Left logic. Have another swig of Kool-Aid.

[Guest a proud american]

WELL DUH !!! Cite you an example of something that's never occurred. That sounds like

Loony Left logic. Have another swig of Kool-Aid.

People who don't agree with the ACLU should do some reading of their history. If they were truly interested in only defending Liberal causes then they would be correct.

However, look at some of the cases they have taken. One particular case, ACLU V the City of Skokie, Illinois pertained to the denial of a permit allowing the Neo Nazis from holding a parade in their town. The case was argued by a Jewish Lawyer. Imagine him sitting in a courtroom next to the very person that hated him because of what he was.

They have filed a brief on behalf of Senator Larry Craig, certainly no ACLU lover. In Florida, they wrote a brief defending Rush Limbaugh's right to keep his medical records private. I didn't hear Limbaugh or his attorney Roy Black complaining. Again, Limbaugh was no lover of the ACLU.

The sole purpose of the ACLU is to protect the rights of individuals and the Constitution. But for those who don't understand their purpose or don't choose to understand will always view them differently. This is because they are ignorant of the facts.

[Guest Guest]

WELL DUH !!! Cite you an example of something that's never occurred.

It's never occurred because the ACLU is obviously non-partisan, stupid. If you could show the ACLU specifically turning away cases where right-wingers are asking them for help, then you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself. But you can't, can you?

That sounds like

Loony Left logic.

All real logic sounds loony when one is as stupid as you are.

[Guest Guest]

If they're going to protect us from a bunch of sanctimonious, self-righteous, Bible-thumping fundies please, tell me where to mail my contribution to such a worthy cause.

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pag...lvedmenu_donate

[Guest Speedy G.]

WELL DUH !!! Cite you an example of something that's never occurred. That sounds like

Loony Left logic. Have another swig of Kool-Aid.

They must really be growing some crazy s--t this year.

[Guest 2smart4u]

It's never occurred because the ACLU is obviously non-partisan, stupid. If you could show the ACLU specifically turning away cases where right-wingers are asking them for help, then you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself. But you can't, can you?

All real logic sounds loony when one is as stupid as you are.

"the ACLU is obviously non-partisan" ??? And you're obviously delusionary.

[Guest Patriot]

People who don't agree with the ACLU should do some reading of their history. If they were truly interested in only defending Liberal causes then they would be correct.

However, look at some of the cases they have taken. One particular case, ACLU V the City of Skokie, Illinois pertained to the denial of a permit allowing the Neo Nazis from holding a parade in their town. The case was argued by a Jewish Lawyer. Imagine him sitting in a courtroom next to the very person that hated him because of what he was.

They have filed a brief on behalf of Senator Larry Craig, certainly no ACLU lover. In Florida, they wrote a brief defending Rush Limbaugh's right to keep his medical records private. I didn't hear Limbaugh or his attorney Roy Black complaining. Again, Limbaugh was no lover of the ACLU.

The sole purpose of the ACLU is to protect the rights of individuals and the Constitution. But for those who don't understand their purpose or don't choose to understand will always view them differently. This is because they are ignorant of the facts.

As stated by another poster, the ACLU will occasionally take on a minor conservative cause to give the

impression of balance. This is a calculated PR job. Only the Loony Left and the seriously naive will believe

otherwise. Which one (or both) are you.

[Guest Truth Squad]

As stated by another poster, the ACLU will occasionally take on a minor conservative cause to give the impression of balance. This is a calculated PR job. Only the Loony Left and the seriously naive will believe otherwise. Which one (or both) are you.

And yet for some reason (Gee, what could it be?!), you right-wing nutcakes can't cite one example of any meritorious case the ACLU ever turned down. Ever. Not even one. If what you're saying was true, it would be a simple matter for right wingers to take all their wonderful cases to the ACLU, and when the ACLU turned them down, publicly expose them as frauds. But you can't because the ACLU takes cases based on merit.

You see, there's this thing called the Constitution. It provides a set of principles that form the basis for our legal system. If those principles are cast aside, the American system won't exist any more. Now I know it must seem unfathomable to you that anyone should act on principle, since you don't have any principles and therefore don't understand what it's like to live by them. But until you have some evidence to support your claim, you're really not saying anything.

I know your religion teaches you that if you say something enough it becomes true. If you ever grow up, you'll realize that there's a thing called reality, which doesn't care how many times you say something.

Of course, that's not going to stop you from repeating the same idiotic claims over

and over

and over

and over

and over . . .

In your little pea brain you've created a world in which everyone and everything you don't understand is "Loony Left." And since that's pretty much everyone and everything, you've got a lot to be angry at.

Of course, you could prove me wrong by supplying the vast amount of evidence you have to support your claim. Doesn't it ever dawn on you that you might be wrong?

[Guest Guest]

As stated by another poster, the ACLU will occasionally take on a minor conservative cause to give the

impression of balance. This is a calculated PR job.

But of course, that argument falls flat when that lies 100% in the hands of the 'clients,' as the ACLU has NEVER turned down a request to defend the civil liberties of right-wingers. But you're far too stupid to know that, huh Patrat?

Show us ANY so-called 'conservative cause' (civil liberties are non-partisan, so that's a silly label), minor OR major, where the ACLU was asked to help and they refused. Put up or shut up.

[Guest Guest]

"the ACLU is obviously non-partisan" ??? And you're obviously delusionary.

[billydee4]

As stated by another poster, the ACLU will occasionally take on a minor conservative cause to give the

impression of balance. This is a calculated PR job. Only the Loony Left and the seriously naive will believe

otherwise. Which one (or both) are you.

It could be the Right's consistent habit of stepping on other people's civil rights and the Left's concerned for the civil rights of others.

[Guest Guest]

"the ACLU is obviously non-partisan" ??? And you're obviously delusionary.

Shut up, racist.