[Jonesy9]

Interesting. The ACLU and Rush. Will wonders never cease? I'm not up on FL law or medical legal issues but I still wonder why his records shouldn't be used or referenced to prove or disprove that he was engaged in an illegal conspiracy to obtain illicit controlled substances. I don't really blame Rush for doing whatever is neccessary to prevent being charged for his crimes, survival instinct is strong, but the law is the law. Be a man and face the consequnces of your actions.






ACLU defends Limbaugh's privacy in prescription drug case
JILL BARTON
Associated Press

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Rush Limbaugh and the American Civil Liberties Union don't agree about much, but they are in accord on at least one matter - that the conservative radio commentator's medical records should be off-limits to prosecutors.

The Florida ACLU filed court papers Monday supporting Limbaugh's argument that state investigators violated his constitutional right to privacy when they seized his medical records in November to investigate whether he violated drug laws when he purchased prescription painkillers.

"It may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement. "But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view."

The organization said it wanted "to vindicate every Floridian's fundamental right to privacy by ensuring that the state be required to comply" with the law.

State Attorney Barry Krischer had no comment on the ACLU's involvement. Spokesman Mike Edmondson said prosecutors have followed state laws and have protected Limbaugh's rights throughout the investigation. Limbaugh has not been charged with a crime.

Prosecutors say they cannot continue their investigation until they review Limbaugh's medical records, which have been sealed since Dec. 23.

Limbaugh's attorneys have asked the 4th District Court of Appeal to keep the medical records sealed past a Jan. 23 deadline set by the Palm Beach Circuit Court.

Investigators went after the records discovering that Limbaugh received more than 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion. Limbaugh's former maid told investigators she had been supplying him prescription painkillers for years.

Limbaugh attorney Roy Black said the issues in the case affect all Floridians, whatever their political bent.

"As both the ACLU and we have stated, the seizure of Mr. Limbaugh's private medical records without due process is not only a violation of Florida law and the Florida Constitution, but also a threat to everyone's fundamental right to privacy," Black said in a statement Monday.

Black and Limbaugh have argued that the investigation is politically motivated - a charge that prosecutors deny. Black says the records would only prove Limbaugh suffered from a serious medical condition and was prescribed painkillers.

Limbaugh admitted his addiction in October, saying it stemmed from severe back pain. He took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.

[MrAcheson]

Holy Crap! I bet that leaves a sour taste in a lot ACLUers mouths.:D

[Andrew Rothman]

Nope.

We ACLU members are used to the fact that to protect everyone's rights, it is necessary to protect the rights of Nazis, pornographers, and even (gasp!) conservatives!

It's not that we love these folks, it's that we know that the best way to take away civil rights is to start by taking them away from unpopular people.

The ACLU-bashers take things like this much harder than we do.

[fix]

Surprise? Hardly. Rush is in the wrong, and should fess up to what he's done. I've pretty much lost what little respect I had for him. The ACLU has a habit of aiding folks who are in the wrong, so no surprise there.

[labgrade]

I have absolutely no respect for Rush other than as an entertainer (& that is a good enough one! to make his millions & more power to him) - he is certainly no bastion of conservativeness - otherwise, he would ascribe to, ... uh? what's that's word? oh yeah! the constitution, limitations on federal powers, etc. .... anyway ...

Mpayne's:

"We ACLU members are used to the fact that to protect everyone's rights, it is necessary to protect the rights of Nazis, pornographers, and even (gasp!) conservatives!'

& Gasp! What about the second amendment, or that of others to choose free associations, or not?

:barf: ! in spades, sir!

"It's not that we love these folks, it's that we know that the best way to take away civil rights is to start by taking them away from unpopular people."

Unmitigated BS, sir.

Your ilk (the American Communist Lawyers Union) would deprive even some of The Most Popular (Boy Scouts, in particular) from being forced! to associate with those whom they'd rather not. You attempt to force your ways upon those who would just as not, & rather very peacebly, I'd say, refrain from having your views thrust down their throats. No pun intended.

IF. Mind you, IF, the ACLU wanted to protect civil rights (of which there are no such thing - only individual rights - but a lesson for another day), the ACLU would be triumphant regards the second amendment (the most purest form of an individual to defend their own families ..... amongst others) - but they will not.

"The ACLU-bashers take things like this much harder than we do."

You betcha, pal.

Your right to free speech is unencombered by me & through the blessings of a very astute bill of rights.

Your ilk has attempted to sully these things until they are no longer recognisable.

But, y'all just "wanna get along?" while destroying the very fabric on which this country was founded?

Don't give us this soft-sell song & dance BS.

The ACLU never attempts to "protect everyone's rights."

They attempt to bastardize the very notion of.

[Monkeyleg]

I got a call last week from a guy who wanted me to send emails to the people on our CCW group's email alert list announcing an appearance by Bob Barr and another person regarding privacy issues. I like Bob Barr, and would have no problem sending such an email.

However, the other person--forget her name--was from the ACLU, as was the guy calling me. I told him it was more than ironic that the ACLU, which does not recognize the 2nd Amendment, was calling a pro-gun group and asking them to advertise their event.

As for Rush, I think he's been contrite about his problem. Being involved in a legal battle limits what he can say about the issue.

[fix]

Being involved in a legal battle limits what he can say about the issue.

I probably should consider that before jumping to conclusions.

[LifeNRA]

labgrade,
I 100% agree with you. Very strong and to the point post. I would be interested to see any ACLU members respond to labgrade and especially about the Boy Scouts and the 2nd Amendment.

[Sean Smith]

Sounds like a publicity stunt by the ACLU to me. :rolleyes:

[Russ]

Don't know where you all have been for the last 40 years but in my estimation, everything the ACLU is a publicity stunt.

[Sean Smith]

Looking up the right to keep and bear arms on the ACLU website, you find this:

What is the ACLU’s position on gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control.

Hmm. That doesn't make much sense, and sounds like a cop-out or doublespeak. Turns out, it is.

Quoting the ACLU website's "statement on gun control":

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it.

Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

(Emphasis mine in both cases)

The ACLU is quite clearly opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, their disingenuous double-speak elsewhere notwithstanding.

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU.

If this is "not ignoring the Second Ammendment," we would be better off if they DID ignore it. :rolleyes:

[Sean Smith]

And for the ACLU supporters out there who couldn't figure out that the ACLU is anti-RKBA:

Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'jen-y&-w&s
Function: adjective
Date: 1655
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness :

Related Words: false, feigned, insincere...

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

;)

[RightIsRight]

labgrade,

I am no apologist for Rush, but I would like you to defend this statement: he is certainly no bastion of conservativeness . Specifically your reference to "limitations on federal powers"

I would like to know when he has ever called for more or greater federal powers.

[seeker_two]

Methinks that this is an ACLU ploy to fundraise from conservative coffers...:scrutiny:

I'll not be falling for it...:neener:

[Andrew Rothman]

labgrade, if I understood what you meant to say, I'd respond. Try calming down, and brushing up on, you know, English.

No, the ACLU does not defend the Second Amendment. Am I happy about this? No. Does the GOA defend free speech? No. So support both.

I am more and more convinced that gun owners are just like gun grabbers -- they believe what they are conditioned to believe in spite of the facts.

See this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53412&highlight=aclu

Is the ACLU aiding folks in the wrong? No.

How about here?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55803&highlight=aclu

How about here?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45033&highlight=aclu


As I wrote here:http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54190&highlight=aclu
I am a member of the ACLU.

They defend the rights of unpopular groups. So what? Unpopular folks are the ones who get their rights trampled! Duh! Remember "First they came for the Jews"? If the Feds can deny free speech to despicable scum like NAMBLA, they can deny it to, um, let's say... gun owners?

They don't support the Second Amendment. That sucks. But show me where they fight it.

We are NOT going to talk about church and state again. That only gets threads closed. Suffice to say that a school-sanctioned prayer at a football game IS the Church of America.

I have often thought that even if a quarter of NRA members joined the ACLU for $20, we could turn around that 2A plank in about five minutes.

Who's with me?

And I wrote here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39511&highlight=aclu

I, too, am disappointed by the ACLU's defense of the bill of rights -- except for the Second Amendment.

But you have to be an idiot to buy the unmitigated crap in the above post.

Free speech is for everyone. Even Nazis and communists.

What does the Second Amendment say? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We get upset when the "antis" say, "but what they meant is..." and we insist that it be interpreted in its plain English meaning.

So what is so damned hard to understand about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

NO law. None.

You can't pick and choose. If you support the Second Amendment, get behind the First!

Free speech is for you, for me, for Nazis and Commies, and even for liberals! It's for people who like looking at pictures of nekkid (adult) ladies, and for the ladies and their photographers.

The First Amendment means no state-sponsored religious expression in the courtrooms, classrooms, coins or Congress. And what a shame it is that it is so poorly enforced!

The Bill of Rights means no illegal searches of you, your Arab-looking neighbor, or even the Communist Party HQ. It's called equal protection under the law, kids, and it's what makes us great.

Freedom is for everyone, not just those we agree with.

Matt

Seriously, go check out what the ACLU is doing here:http://www.aclu.org/court/courtmain.cfm

See how many cases you are on the same side as the ACLU on. Then decide whether they deserve your scorn.

[Sean Smith]

No, the ACLU does not defend the Second Amendment. Am I happy about this? No. Does the GOA defend free speech? No. So support both.

False parallelism. The ACLU is actively opposed to the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of ideology. The GOA, last I checked, don't have a statement on their website like:

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict freedom of speech, but how much to restrict it."

"Freedom of speech by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

Call me crazy, but I don't support those who denounce my rights. And that is exactly what the ACLU is doing, right on their web site for the world to see.

Freedom is for everyone, not just those we agree with.

A noble sentiment that is the exact opposite of the ACLU position vis-a-vis the 2nd Ammendment.

They don't support the Second Amendment. That sucks. But show me where they fight it.

In their own words, on their own website.

I am more and more convinced that gun owners are just like gun grabbers -- they believe what they are conditioned to believe in spite of the facts.

That would explain your support for the ACLU in light of their oppenly declared opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. Or as the ACLU puts it:

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it."

[Andrew Rothman]

False parallelism. The ACLU is actively opposed to the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of ideology.

False statement. The ACLU is an extremely active group, with hundreds of court actions per year. Find even one relating to RTKB and I'll eat my hat.

They use the ideology to support their decision not to defend the 2nd. That sucks. But they do not fight against the 2nd. They are not gun grabbers.

[Sean Smith]

They use the ideology to support their decision not to defend the 2nd.

And use their web site as a bully pulpit to attack the very IDEA of the right to keep and bear arms. It sure looks like you are making a distinction without a difference. If the American Nazi Party has a website saying they want to kill all the Jews, are they somehow NOT anti-semites simply because they aren't ready to do it yet?

They are not gun grabbers.

The ACLU is supposed to DEFEND people when their rights are violated. Of course they wouldn't actively petition against the 2nd Ammendment. Instead, they withold their support from the victims of gun grabbers and let things run their course. Why intervene when their active witholding of support for the 2nd Ammendment side works just fine so far?

It is the ACLU that claims it is unethical to NOT defend people whose rights are threatened, even if they disagree with the actions of the person whose rights were violated. Yet it is somehow ethical to let those who had their 2nd Ammendment rights violated just twist on the vine...? I think the word I'm looking for here is "hypocrite."

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it."

[cracked butt]

The ACLU may not be active gun grabbers, but I would bet my next paycheck that most of its members are.

[Blackcloud6]

But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view."

Well then maybe they should be fighting against Ohio for making so newspapers can publish who get a CCW permit.

[MrAcheson]

Yeah the ACLU doesn't defend your 2nd rights at all. I'm not a 2nd A absolutist either, but the ACLU doesn't walk a middle ground with this issue. There are many CCW cases that directly relate to racial discrimination and other core ACLU principles, people have asked the ACLU but the ACLU will not touch them.

They also don't defend your rights to free religious expression if you're christian. I have seen many christian religious groups go to the ACLU and State CLUs after their rights have been trampled by organizations like state universities only to be told to take a hike because your kind isn't welcome here. Didn't you know? Christians are the oppressors. Why would we help the friend of our enemy? Now Jews and Wiccans is another matter granted and good for them because maybe, just maybe, they'll make a precedent that helps the christians by accident.:fire:

[Monkeyleg]

The ACLU is composed of--present company excepted--trial lawyers. Those who seek to make $$ by going after the deepest pockets.

In terms of 2nd Amendment cases, those $$$ aren't going to come from the perpetrators of the hurt on the plaintiffs, they're going to come from the defendants: people or companies with money.

Isn't it amazing that some of the most liberal constitutional scholars--Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz among them --have come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment means what it says, yet the lesser scholars at the ACLU haven't been able to figure out what those 27 simple words mean?

[c_yeager]

The ACLU does OCCASIONALY do things that i apporove of. But the lack of support for the second ammendment combined with an apparent desire to take cases entirely based on their political aspects leaves me in a pretty comfortable position of NOT supporting them in any way.

I like how Payne supports his arguments by citing his own posts, its cute.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Mpayne:

We are NOT going to talk about church and state again. That only gets threads closed. Suffice to say that a school-sanctioned prayer at a football game IS the Church of America

How does a local school district's permission to recite prayers at a football game constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause, i.e., Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion?

The First Amendment means no state-sponsored religious expression in the courtrooms, classrooms, coins or Congress. And what a shame it is that it is so poorly enforced!

No, it doesn't mean that no religious expression is permitted, it means just exactly what a "plain language" interpertation of it would indicate: that it is a limitation on Congress's lawmaking in support of religion and not something designed to rid all public places of any vestige of religious symbolism. If it were, why would the 10 Commandments still be displayed in bas-relief at the Supreme Court building?

No mention of God on coins, stamps, Congress? Then why hasn't the ACLU sued to have the Library of Congress cease to display the Declaration of Independence. It's chock-a-block full of references to things like "...endowed by their creator" "...God..." etc.

No, the ACLU does not defend the Second Amendment. Am I happy about this? No. Does the GOA defend free speech? No. So support both

You're incorrect on the GOA. They spent considerable amount of money lobbying against the unconstitutional campaign finance reform act, the same one opposed by the ACLU, NRA, et al. at the SCOTUS

Face it, the ACLU cherry picks only those cases which can be pushed for publicity and hence more donations, and those which support its far left social agenda.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

MrAcheson:

They also don't defend your rights to free religious expression if you're christian. I have seen many christian religious groups go to the ACLU and State CLUs after their rights have been trampled by organizations like state universities only to be told to take a hike because your kind isn't welcome here. Didn't you know? Christians are the oppressors. Why would we help the friend of our enemy? Now Jews and Wiccans is another matter granted and good for them because maybe, just maybe, they'll make a precedent that helps the christians by accident

I can't recall a single case where the ACLU has sued to have any non-Christian religious symbols like a Menorah removed from a public place. If they ever did, it would constitute only a vanishingly small percentage of the Establishment Clause cases they have brought to court.

[jimpeel]

I got a call last week from a guy who wanted me to send emails to the people on our CCW group's email alert list announcing an appearance by Bob Barr and another person regarding privacy issues. I like Bob Barr, and would have no problem sending such an email.

However, the other person--forget her name--was from the ACLU, as was the guy calling me. I told him it was more than ironic that the ACLU, which does not recognize the 2nd Amendment, was calling a pro-gun group and asking them to advertise their event.
Bob Barr now works for the ACLU.

[Tamara]

I told him it was more than ironic that the ACLU, which does not recognize the 2nd Amendment, was calling a pro-gun group and asking them to advertise their event.

Which makes it interesting that they filed an amicus brief in the Newsom v. Albermarle County School Board case on behalf of the NRA-tee-shirt-wearing tyke. Maybe screaming pinko ACLU consultants Bob Barr or Dick Armey suggested it. :uhoh:


Does supporting the ACLU sometimes leave a bitter taste in my mouth? Yeah, but sometimes supporting the National Republ... er, Rifle Association does, too...

[Sean Smith]

Does supporting the ACLU sometimes leave a bitter taste in my mouth? Yeah, but sometimes supporting the National Republ... er, Rifle Association does, too...

Again, does the NRA take a public position AGAINST certain constitutional rights? Just curious, because the ACLU does. That is a meaningful difference to me.

[Sean Smith]

Let's say I run a legal defense fund. It has many noble and laudable qualities and takes on cases that no one else will, on the grounds of protecting individuals' constitutional rights. It also has a platform that reads, "It is our position that there is no constitutional right for women to vote." Now, we haven't done much about it, but the platform is right there for everyone to see, and is clearly part of the underlying ideology of most of our members.

How would you feel about supporting such an organization?

[Delmar]

So what is so damned hard to understand about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
The hard part apparently is getting the ACLU to read the WHOLE thing "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof".

[MrAcheson]

I can't recall a single case where the ACLU has sued to have any non-Christian religious symbols like a Menorah removed from a public place. If they ever did, it would constitute only a vanishingly small percentage of the Establishment Clause cases they have brought to court.

True and I don't have a problem with that. I'm all for the free exercise of religion even if its not my own. I know of at least one case where the ACLU stood up for some fairly orthodox Jews who were being forced to live against their beliefs by collegate housing regulations. It was a case where housing was very co-ed (down to the bathrooms) and also mandatory for freshmen so they couldn't just move off campus. Good for the ACLU.

Why don't they take up similar cases from christians? One, the kind of christian that tries to bring these suits votes overwhelmingly republican. Two, Jews are somewhat over-represented in the legal profession because of Jewish cultural/religious emphasis on the Torah. Three, these christian suits lack merit. I'm guessing its a mixture of all of these to some extent.

NOTE: I have nothing against Jews. I am not an anti-semite. This goy is making plans to marry a nice Jewish girl and raise nice Jewish kids within a few years.

[Andrew Rothman]

I like how Payne supports his arguments by citing his own posts, its cute.

You think that's cute? You should see me in my bunny slippers! :neener:

Seriously, I just have limited patience for re-inventing the wheel.

I could have just copied and pasted the answer; in the interest of honesty, I just acknowledged that the verbiage was recycled.

[mec]

The ACLU is merely hanging onto the coat tails of Limbaugh's lawyers. The main point is that only one person prior to Limbaugh has been persecuted under the "doctor shopping" law. He's high profile and a good target for ambitious leftists everywhere.

[labgrade]

RightIsRight,

"I am no apologist for Rush, but I would like you to defend this statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he is certainly no bastion of conservativeness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. Specifically your reference to "limitations on federal powers"

I would like to know when he has ever called for more or greater federal powers."

He seems to be all for most whatever the 'Pubs do & certainly, other than rare instances, called for them rolling back their powers.

Mpayne,

"labgrade, if I understood what you meant to say, I'd respond. Try calming down, and brushing up on, you know, English."

I'm calm enough & uh, you know, duh, I mean, thanks much for the lesson, but I'll write I see fit. Thanks much. ;)

"I, too, am disappointed by the ACLU's defense of the bill of rights -- except for the Second Amendment.

But you have to be an idiot to buy the unmitigated crap in the above post.

Free speech is for everyone. Even Nazis and communists."

'Course free speech is for everyone & I even supported their defence of the Nazis marching in (mumble) quite awhile back - as distasteful as I thought it was. I couldn't agree more.

Don't think for one minute that I pick & choose - the document says exactly what it says.

ACLU defending groups such as NAMBLA, attempting to force homosexuals down the throats of the Boy Scouts, or depriving the 'Scouts of a century's worth of community alliances at the threat of million dollar law suits turns my stomach.

Yup, they do some decent enough things that I do agree with, but they also do enough damage - I'm agin 'em.

& don't even go there with the "establishment clause." Anyone who has done any historical readings will come to the same conclusion as with the second = it says exactly what it says. "ongress shall make no law" as in establishing a religion - not mentioning God, or wiping away any reference thereof was not in the cards.

(Oops! late for English class ... gotta run!)
:neener:

[mec]

Defending Rush:
Not necessary. He has been taking strong drugs for extreme pain. They have allowed him to function. I've done the same thing and, while my doctors were willing or able to supply them legally, I would not stick at getting them any way necessary.

It is unfortunate that drugs have negative effects, but they are necessary and desirable for pain management.

[Jonesy9]

yup. and cheech and chong smoke pot to prevent glaucoma.

[Monkeyleg]

C'mon, Tamara. The ACLU is defending the kid with the NRA t-shirt because it's a First Amendment issue, not a Second Amendment issue.

As for Bob Barr being an ACLU member, I wasn't aware of that. Looks like the group is being infiltrated.

[telewinz]

The ACLU has earned the reputation of defending a low-life or two, I see they are continuing their tradition.:barf:

[Dorrin79]

I guess the ACLU just can't win...

Defend a well-known conservative against invasion of privacy?

"It's just a publicity stunt! Besides, drugs are eeevilll!"

Defend a kid for wearing a NRA t-shirt?

"Just a publicity stunt! Besides, ACLU hates guns!"

Seriously, guys, the ACLU may not be on our side of all issues, but they are serious, principled watchdogs of the state on issues of speech, privacy, police powers and separation of Church and State.

I would think that would count for something here, even if they have not (yet) joined in our defense of the 2A.

[riverdog]

The ACLU has a lot of folks as members who don't like the idea of the 2nd Amendment and has supposedly taken a supposedly neutral position on it. The ACLU Position on gun rights (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25) is unfortunate: We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic Then in the next paragraph they state: The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. This quote is contradicted by their statements in the previous quote, as well as being self contradicting. Equating the privilege of automobile ownership and licensing with the Right of firearm ownership is hardly a neutral position. It is also illogical to believe that of all the BoR, the “People” in the 2nd Amendment referred to the "state", while the other “People” were and are individuals. The mere use of the term “anachronistic” with regard to the 2nd Amendment shows a less than neutral and in fact hostile attitude toward the right to keep and bear arms.

The ACLU needs to be more intellectually honest on the subject of the 2nd Amendment. However, the ACLU is not a homogenous body, but a group of individuals with differing opinions. I believe the ACLU’s position is simply a compromise to which neither side really subscribes. It’s the only way I can rationalize the illogical arguments in the paragraph above.

The case law stated in the ACLU’s position paper is incomplete. They have ignored the findings of Emerson and the Silveira v. Lockyer and even though both those cases went against the 2nd Amendment at the Supreme Court, they are relevant to the discussion. There is disagreement between the 5th and 9th Districts and that should have forced a SC to intercede, but it refrained. This was hardly the court’s finest hour. Regardless, the ACLU’s position is based on weak case law. But then it doesn’t really matter, because their argument is simply to justify their neutral position – pretty weak.

All that said, I still support the 1st and 4th Amendment and I believe the ACLU is a strong advocate for the freedoms associated predominantly with those Amendments. The ACLU as an organization really should STFU with regard to the 2nd in order to remain intellectually honest. Elitist intellectuals can hardly be expected to STFU when they know that they know better :rolleyes: but the organization can and should remain silent rather than espouse a laughable neutral stance.

[Mulliga]

A famous RKBA quote:

"The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore all the others."

Free speech and not having a standing army quartered in your house are fine, but the 2nd gives all the other amendments teeth.

The ACLU position, simply put, is NOT neutral. If they really were neutral, they wouldn't even be MENTIONING licenses and registration (Great Britain, anyone?...). Next thing you know, we'll all have to have "good reason" to own a firearm.

Well, let's hope some RKBA people get in the ACLU and shake things up a bit.

[sturmruger]

I have more respect for Rush now then I ever have. Yes he did some things that I would not choose to do, but the honest way he has owned up to it has made me proud. He is one of the finest Americans I can think of. He is a hero that I look up to immensely. I believe that we as conservative American’s need Rush’s truth to balance out all of the lies that are told in the regular media.

(Mpayne will hate this line) GOD BLESS RUSH LIMBAUGH

[cracked butt]

Seriously, guys, the ACLU may not be on our side of all issues, but they are serious, principled watchdogs of the state on issues of speech, privacy, police powers and separation of Church and State.

One of the very big beefs I have with the ACLU is the whole church and state misnomer.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religeon, or prohibiting the free excecise thereof.....


Translation- the state cannot pick a religeon and make everyone follow it.
On the other hand, government cannot interfere with people freely practicing their religeon.


The ACLU's stance is nearly the opposite of what is written in Amendment 1 concerning religeon.:barf:

The prohibition of free excercise of religeon in pulic places and buildings is in itself the state establishing a religeon- a religeon of atheism or a religeon where where one cannot freely worship the god of their choice.

[MeekandMild]

Politics aside the main difficulty with the ACLU is that it promotes a culture of judicial activism which in turn deconstructs the common law basis of our society.

[dustind]

attempting to force homosexuals down the throats of the Boy Scouts Now there is an image I did not need. I have nothing against homosexuals, but the Boy Scouts can ban anyone they want. The ACLU was wrong on that one and many others like it.

As for church and state. Why is letting individuals choose so hard to comprehend for so many on both sides of the issue? Why does it often have to be, force everyone to pray, or ban everyone from praying?

I agree with Sean Smith on this issue. I am also glad they support people and groups like NAMBLA, KKK, Nazis, and Rush Limbaugh. Every loss of rights started "reasonably" with a "good idea" or by going after bad people.

Does the ACLU really refuse to take cases because people are pro gun activists or Christians? If they do no one should support them.

[Tamara]

How would you feel about supporting such an organization?

Let me get this straight: I'm supposed to infiltrate and change the GOP from within because some of their planks aren't onerous to BoR supporters, but I'm supposed to shun the ACLU because one of their planks is onerous to BoR supporters?

This stikes me as slightly non sequitur-ish... :uhoh:

[Combat-wombat]

Rush is in the wrong, and should fess up to what he's done.
NO, Rush is NOT wrong. He committed a victimless crime, which should not be illegal. The government is not our mother, and doesn't have the right to tell us what we can or can not do to ourselves.
Seriously, guys, the ACLU may not be on our side of all issues, but they are serious, principled watchdogs of the state on issues of speech, privacy, police powers and separation of Church and State. I would think that would count for something here, even if they have not (yet) joined in our defense of the 2A.
I totally agree with you.

[Sean Smith]

Let me get this straight: I'm supposed to infiltrate and change the GOP from within because some of their planks aren't onerous to BoR supporters, but I'm supposed to shun the ACLU because one of their planks is onerous to BoR supporters?

Huh? :confused:

I never suggested that you, or anybody else, do any such thing regarding the GOP. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

This stikes me as slightly non sequitur-ish...

By YOU, yes, since I never supported the position that you are claiming is illogical. :)

[Derek Zeanah]

My issue with Rush here is the stance he's taken in public versus the stance he's taken in private. But he's not the only one.

Clinton: had quite the pot habit in college, but continued to wage the "war on drugs" when in office.

Bush: drunk driving and a coke habit in his past, but now he's also a righteous drug warrior.

Rush: never heard him take anything but a pro-drug-war stance on the air, but he's been taking pain meds on the side without a perscription. The reason a doctor can't prescribe enough meds to deal with chronic pain? The DEA will put 'em out of business and try to throw them in jail, because it looks like some of the patients might be enjoying it too much. All a product of the righteous drug warriors' fighting the good fight.

"OK for me but not for thee..."

So has anyone heard Rush takde the position that "You know....We here at the Excellence in brooooooadcasting newtork, with talent on loan from Gawwwwwwd, have been intimately involved in a recent scandal, that while regrettable, shines light on an important fact: current drug policies don't allow for the treatment of legitimate chronic pain for good, right-thinking conservative Americans..."

I doubt it. He ought to have a show where WWII vets in constant pain call in talking about unbearable pain that they can't get treated. Have a couple of those heroic folks talk about possibly using the same pistol they fought the Nazis with to end their own pain and suffering and you might see a few Rush listeners change their position on one of the biggest issues that's been causing our declining rights here in the states.

But that's not Rush's response, is it?

[Sean Smith]

He committed a victimless crime, which should not be illegal.

Not if you listen to... Rush himself before he got caught. ;)

[w4rma]

As usual, the ACLU stands up for EVERYBODY'S civil rights, unlike just about every other group.

[MrAcheson]

Yeah sure they do, I think we've already covered a bunch of the people they don't.

[Sean Smith]

w4rma,

As usual, the ACLU stands up for EVERYBODY'S civil rights, unlike just about every other group.

As long as your civil right isn't the right to keep and bear arms. Try reading the ACLU web site, you might learn something. ;)

...the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala" won't make the ACLU's own statements go away.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

"...shall not be infringed" being a peculiar way for something to be "left open."

There seems to be a willful desire to pretend that the ACLU's own statements on their web site flat-out don't exist or something. But reality is a bitch. I'm not quoting Newsmax or Fox News or some other right-leaning media outlet... but the ACLU website.

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

I'm actually not opposed to a fair amount of what the ACLU does. But their taking a public position against one of my civil rights is too much for me, personally, to stomach. The idea that this is somehow an indefensible point of view for me to hold strikes me as bizarre.

[Dorrin79]

The idea that this is somehow an indefensible point of view for me to hold strikes me as bizarre.

Hey, man, it's cool!

I wasn't referring to you, or anyone else who says "ACLU is ok, but I can't support a group that has a negative opinion of one of my core civil rights"

I was referring to the knee-jerk "Damn Commie Pinko...." lines of "reasoning" that seem to come out in spades whenever the ACLU comes up.

And don't get me wrong - if I am ever made aware of the ACLU actively supporting an anti-gun court case or policy decision then I will cease supporting them.

Their "neutral" stance is stupid, but I think when balanced against their strong points they are still worthy of my support.

You disagree, and that's cool.

:cool:

[Sean Smith]

I'd love to hear how someone can reconcile this:

The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

With this:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control.

By way of this:

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it.

Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

How can you be "neutral" on an issue that pertains to the constitutional rights that your organization exists to protect? And how can you be "neutral" if you take sides on that same issue? I can't be the only person here that sees a colossal logical disconnect here, can I?

If this is neutrality, I'd rather have an outright enemy. :barf:

[Andrew Rothman]

(Mpayne will hate this line) GOD BLESS RUSH LIMBAUGHHow do you figure?

I may doubt the existence of God; I may doubt Rush's blessing status if there is a God, but I have absolutely no problem with your sentiment.

[Andrew Rothman]

If this is neutrality, I'd rather have an outright enemy. Your lack of logic is disturbing.

The ACLU doesn't litigate RKBA cases on either side. That is neutrality.

You'd rather have another Brady Campaign fighting against our rights that the ACLU explaining why they choose to ignore them?

Whatever.

[fix]

Your lack of logic is disturbing.

It's called principles, not lack of logic.

[Sean Smith]

Whatever.

That is sure a convincing response! :rolleyes:

The ACLU doesn't litigate RKBA cases on either side. That is neutrality.

If a politican never enacted a law involving free speech, but had the following as part of his platform, would YOU consider him "neutral" on the issue of free speech?

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict free speech, but how much to restrict it."

With the statements on THEIR OWN WEB SITE, the ACLU has aligned itself with the views of "Brady Campaign" quite clearly. For being "neutral," they are in quite perfect ideological harmony with radical anti-RKBA groups. It is written in Standard American English and everything. ;)

[Master Blaster]

It does seem like a witch hun based upon who he is to me.

Usually when a junky gets caught making a buy (red handed even) on their first offense the junky gets simple possession, and then a fine (its usually a misdemeaner in most jurisdictions). Sometimes if they are charged with a felony, they get probation for a first offense.

Conspiracy???, how about RICO, or treason, or a plot to overthrow the new world order by taking drugs and talking on the radio to incite a revolution:barf:

He's a junky 1st offense no violence, should have been plead to a fine and probation.

Now the person selling him the drugs (his maid) is a dealer, and involved in a crimminal conspiracy to distribute drugs, but they get a deal for turning in their pathetic junky customer off of whom they have profited, and even threatened blackmail (a serious felony).

***:barf:

[Sean Smith]

Imagine this conversation. Perhaps an interview with a politician?

Q: "What is your position on the right to keep and bear arms?"

A: "The possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

Q: "Really. Isn't that rather extreme?"

A: " No. The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it."

Q: "So you are opposed to the right to keep and bear arms?"

A: "No, I'm neutral on the issue of gun control."

"Neutral" indeed, with bold being straight from the figurative mouth of that crazy right-wing bastion of spin, the ACLU website. ;)

[w4rma]

The ACLU's position on the second amendment is the exact same position that the U.S. Supreme Court (of which a majority are Republican appointed) and most of the other courts in the nation hold. Whether that is the reading intended by the founders (I don't think that it is, I think the founders wanted U.S. citizens to have the means to rebel - "blood of patriots") or isn't doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is that the ACLU doesn't want to get involved in that fight and alienate one side or the other. Unfortunately, alot of folks have bought into the propaganda that the ACLU isn't helping to protect our rights and they help the statists and the fascists in destroying our rights by helping them demonize one more protector of most of our Bill of Rights.

[Sean Smith]

The fact of the matter is that the ACLU doesn't want to get involved in that fight and alienate one side or the other.

A peculiar argument, since the ACLU is famous for not caring who it alienates as long as it is "defending peoples' rights." Or some of them, anyway. Would they defend NAMBLA if they cared if they alienated anybody?

Again, we are left with the ACLU saying that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. They didn't have to take an openly hostile stance to the 2nd Ammendment; if they could not agree among themselves what position to take, they could have said that they don't take a position on it and leave it at that. But they DID take a position, and that position is that there is no right to keep and bear arms. How can we reasonably conclude that this represents anything but open hostility to the very concept of the right to keep and bear arms?

If they were really neutral, they wouldn't have openly denied the very existence of one of our constitutional rights. You can't much clearer than that.

The ACLU's position on the second amendment is the exact same position that the U.S. Supreme Court (of which a majority are Republican appointed) and most of the other courts in the nation hold.

At one time the position of the Supreme Court and most other courts in the nation was that black people had no rights. Hiding behind the robes of judges is a cop-out, and has all the ethical weight of the between-song patter at a Kid Rock concert. Again, a peculiar argument since the ACLU has as often as not run counter to judicial conventional wisdom for decades...

Let's compare the ACLU's declared position concerning the right to keep and bear arms to the opening lines of The High Road's "Rules of Conduct":

Welcome to The High Road, an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it

(emphasis mine in both cases)

So the ACLU believes in restricting what THR seeks to promote.

[jimpeel]

Bush: drunk driving and a coke habit in his past, but now he's also a righteous drug warrior.Perhaps you missed the word when it was passed; but the "tell-all" book that was written about Bush's "coke habit", and its author, were so roundly discredited that the publisher recalled all unsold copies and took them to the dump.

I don't care who you are or what your status, there are always those who will come forward and say "Yeah, we used to do <fill in blank> together when we were in <fill in blank>." To believe that Bush was a coke-head who never did it in the presence of another person, or that those who did do it with him are so "honorable" -- or have such blind allegiance to him -- that not one of them would come forward is ludicrous.

This is very old and very discredited news you are attempting to disseminate.

http://home.indy.rr.com/bwgoodwi/Wow%20-%20Old%20News%20Is%20Exciting.jpg

[MrAcheson]

The ACLU's position on the second amendment is the exact same position that the U.S. Supreme Court (of which a majority are Republican appointed) and most of the other courts in the nation hold.

(1) The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on a 2nd A case in something like 70 years IIRC. That being the case how do you know the interpretation of the current one.
(2) That doesn't make them right.
(3) Please stop trolling and let this thread die.

[jimpeel]

http://home.indy.rr.com/bwgoodwi/This%20Thread%20Won't%20Die.jpg

[w4rma]

Perhaps you missed the word when it was passed; but the "tell-all" book that was written about Bush's "coke habit", and its author, were so roundly discredited that the publisher recalled all unsold copies and took them to the dump....
Mr Bush's evasions over drugs have brought accusations of hypocrisy from critics, who recalled the Republicans' relentless pursuit of President Clinton over his relationship with the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

A Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, pointed out that as Texas governor, Mr Bush favoured tough prison sentences for anyone caught with even a gram of cocaine: "Using cocaine is a crime for which many go to jail. The issue, then, is not so much what Bush did in the past but whether he is a hypocrite in the present."

• "I wasn't interested in taking root. I was having fun." 1997

• "When I was young and irresponsible, that's exactly what I was - young and irresponsible," 1997

• "I kind of floated and saw a lot of life." On his rootless period in the 1960s

• "I've assumed the mantle of being a governor and a father in a responsible way, and the signal we ought to send to our children is that in spite of what happened in the 60s and 70s we have learned some lessons. And the lesson ought to be, don't be using drugs and alcohol. Learn the lessons from the past." 1998

• "I'm not going to talk about what I did years ago. This is a game where they float rumours, force a person to fight off a rumour - then they will float another rumour. And I'm not going to participate - I've told people that I've learned from my mistakes - and I have. And I'm going to leave it at that." July 1999

• "Not only could I pass the background checks of the standards in today's White House, I could have passed the back-check on the standards applied on the more stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - which is a 15-year period. Should I become the president, my pledge to the American people is that I would uphold the dignity and honour of the office to which I have been elected." Yesterday
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,270406,00.html

For someone who you say never used cocaine, he sure is evasive about it. Also, from what I have read he probably deserted (http://www.awolbush.com/) the Texas National Guard to go snort the stuff.

[Sean Smith]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc5.jpg

I'm punching out of this thread. Have fun without me. :neener:

[dustind]

(of which a majority are Republican appointed) Was that true when they last ruled 70 years ago? or are you talking about the SC now, which is irrelivent.

[w4rma]

Was that true when they last ruled 70 years ago? or are you talking about the SC now, which is irrelivent.It was true 70 years ago (Remember FDR was elected after about 30 years of mostly Republican Presidents), and is true now.

[jimpeel]

For someone who you say never used cocaine, he sure is evasive about it. Also, from what I have read he probably deserted the Texas National Guard to go snort the stuff.So in your world, all denials are admissions, and probability is actuality. Supposition and conjecture are all that are needed for a conviction.

He states that he is not going to participate in the political mudslinging rumor mill; and that is indicative of his guilt.

Also, I never said he "never used cocaine". I said that those who have accused him of using it have never been able to produce a single shred of evidence to that end. The only guy who was ever taken seriously, and who wrote a book about Bush's supposed cocaine use, was so severely discredited that his publisher threw out his books and threw him off their author list.

In your profile, you state that your location is "United States of America". You sure don't act like it.

Sean Smith just bailed out of this thread so I guess that means that he has something to hide because he will no longer participate in the thread.

[Monkeyleg]

I've tried and tried to stay away from w4rma's posts because they remind me of other posts from folks who came and went at convenient times.

Remember Michael from TFL who showed up in 2000 just in time to champion John McCain, then disappeared after McCain lost the nomination? Michael sounded sincere, and almost was to the point of being able to sell ice to eskimos.

Then there was CommonSense, who arrived here on THR right when the WI state legislature was debating the concealed carry bill and tried every which way to convince THR members that it was a bad bill. Once the guv vetoed the bill, CommonSense was nowhere to be found. Now that we have override sessions coming up next week, I wonder if he'll resurface to spread his lies again?

There have been countless others who show up at the most convenient times, and disappear at the most conspicuous times.

If w4rma sticks around after next November, I owe him a beer or a lunch (his choice). If he disappears, well, we know what his purpose here was.

[jimpeel]

http://home.indy.rr.com/bwgoodwi/Don't%20Feed%20the%20Trolls.jpg

[Art Eatman]

:barf:

Guess what?

Art