ACLU to defend Rush

[jimpeel]

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.

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.


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!

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!)

 

[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.

 

[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]

Can't believe I'm defending the ACLU

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 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 **** with regard to the 2nd in order to remain intellectually honest. Elitist intellectuals can hardly be expected to **** when they know that they know better 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.

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]

Sean Smith,

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...

 

[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?

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.