Questions for Fairweather, Puget, and KK

[Dechristo]

I'm sure part of the dislike for the ACLU is the perception shared by many (including myself) that their actions and agenda are not apolitical. Also, the argument of altruistic pro bono work is tainted by the profits gleaned from all taxpayers in pursuit of this perceived agenda.

 

Here's an article found explaining, in part, this objection:

 

 

Legion defends Boy Scouts, fights ACLU

 

By Rees Lloyd

American Legion National Commander Thomas Cadmus recently called on government officials to “stand up to the ACLU,” fueling a firestorm of protest against fanatical in terrorem litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Boy Scouts, the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial and every public expression of America’s religious history and heritage.

The call from the Legion’s top official came in a blistering public denunciation of the Defense Department announcement that it would order military units worldwide not to sponsor Boy Scout troops, a partial surrender to an ACLU lawsuit filed in Illinois in 1999. Cadmus asked publicly, “What are the courts doing? ... Where is the outrage?”

The public generally does not know the ACLU is profiting in such cases by millions of dollars in taxpayer-paid “attorney fee awards” authorized under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1988.

While the law was paved with good intentions – to ensure legitimate victims of civil-rights violations could obtain representation – it has been exploited by the ACLU in First Amendment “establishment of religion clause” cases in which there are, in fact, no attorney fees incurred by the ACLU or its plaintiffs, who appear to be “mascot plaintiffs” with de minimis claims, like “Ohmigod – I saw a cross!”

Elected and appointed officials at the local, state, and federal levels have been literally terrorized from standing up to the ACLU in fear of enormous attorney fees being imposed by unelected judges not answerable to the taxpayers. As far as is known, not a single American judge has had the courage to exercise discretion to deny attorney fees to the ACLU under 42 U.S. Code 1988, which is the sole authority for awarding attorney fees.

Delegates at the National Convention 2004 unanimously adopted Resolution 326, “Preservation of the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial,” which calls on Congress to amend the law and end judges’ authority to award attorney fees in cases brought “to remove or destroy religious symbols.”

The Department of California sponsored Resolution 326 after a federal court in Riverside, Calif., for the first time allowed the ACLU to pursue a precedent-setting lawsuit to remove a solitary cross at what is now the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial.

That case, Buono v. Norton, illustrates the ACLU’s fanaticism, disrespect for veterans, and exposes the threat of further legal attacks on veterans’ memorials by the ACLU or others.

In 1934, a private citizen strapped two pipes together to form a cross and mounted it on a rock outcrop in a remote, privately owned area of the Mojave Desert. The purpose was to honor the service of World War I veterans. President Clinton, as one of his last acts, issued an executive order incorporating the area in the Mojave National Preserve. The ACLU seized on that fact to file a federal suit to remove the cross in 2000. A district court ruled for the ACLU and awarded it more than $40,000 in attorney fees.

Veterans protested, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., who represents the area, achieved legislation officially establishing the site as the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. The legislation authorized an exchange of the 1-acre site for five acres from a private owner, placing the memorial on private land.

However, that did not satisfy the fanatical ACLU. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held the case was “not moot” because the land exchange, although legislatively authorized, was not complete. Further, the court found the lead plaintiff – the first and sole remaining plaintiff – had legal standing to complain of civil-rights injury.

The lead plaintiff, Fank Buono, is a retired Forest Service employee who later moved to Oregon, but claims civil-rights violation and injury because he sees the cross when driving back on visits. ACLU’s attorney fee award for representing him was increased to $63,000.

Upon such de minimis dross as this is constitutional law being made by judges, and the ACLU is profiting financially, at taxpayer expense.

They’re still at it. The ACLU filed a motion in District Court in December to declare the land exchange unconstitutional, claiming it doesn’t comply with the spirit of the injunction.

Other examples of ACLU abuse are multiple, nationwide, and glaring:

 The ACLU reaped some $940,000 in settlement from the City of San Diego when it surrendered in ACLU’s litigation to kick the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. The Boy Scouts are appealing. The American Legion has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Scouts.

 The ACLU received some $500,000 to drive the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse of Alabama Judge Roy Moore, notwithstanding the fact that the same Ten Commandments are on the massive doors and the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

 Portland Public Schools were ordered to pay the ACLU $108,000 in a case brought for an atheist who objected to the Boy Scouts being allowed to recruit during non-class time. At the time of this writing, Portland is considering a complete ban.

 The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, over the vigorous objection of Supervisor Michael Antonovich joined by Supervisor Don Knabe, surrendered on a 3- 2 vote to the ACLU’s demands that it change the county seal because of a tiny cross in one small panel representing the mission period of its history. The ACLU, exposing its hypocrisy as well as fanaticism, did not demand removal of the central religious figure dominating the seal -- “Pomona,”the “Italo-Roman goddess of poma, i.e. fruits. A citizens’ initiative petition is ongoing to place the issue on the ballot and overturn the surrender to the ACLU.

 The city council of Redlands, Calif., reluctantly surrendered to the ACLU’s demand that it change its city seal to remove a cross, for fear of court-ordered attorney fees to the ACLU.

Simply put, it is clear the ACLU has gone too far, exploiting the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code 1988, to enrich itself and carry out in terrorem litigation to compel surrender to its demands from elected and appointed officials who fear judge-awarded attorney fees. Claims by ACLU’s defenders that the organization once did public good in defending free speech, are vitiated by its fanaticism in self-enriching terroristic litigation and self-appointed social engineering in the present.

American Legion National Resolution 326 calls for Congress to reform 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1988 to take the profit out of such terroristic litigation. This can be a powerful weapon in the effort to stop such abuses. It will take a united, determined effort of the American Legion Family, other veterans, an aroused citizenry and courageous elected officials.

The legal principles used by the ACLU to sue against the single cross at the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial are applicable to the 9,000 crosses and Stars of David at Normandy, along with those in every national cemetery.

If Congress does not act, nothing in the law will prevent Islamist terrorists in the United States, or their sympathizers, from using the ACLU precedent to sue veterans’ memorials or the Boy Scouts, or anyone else over expressions of America’s religious history and heritage. And nothing stops the ACLU from collecting millions of taxpayer dollars as attorney-fee awards.

Commander Cadmus has sounded the tocsin. “We are determined to stand up to the ACLU and, as first step, to demand that Congress end the appalling practice of awarding attorney fees in the millions of dollars to the ACLU at taxpayer expense so they can use the courts to destroy American values.”

 

Rees Lloyd, a longtime civil-rights attorney, is past commander of American Legion San Gorgonio Pass Post 428 in Banning, Calif., and the author of Resolution 326. He was an ACLU of Southern California staff attorney for two years after graduating from law school in 1979.

 

 

 

 

edit: gotta have the civil libertarian

Edited December 8, 2006 by Dechristo

[olyclimber]

the way of the future

[prole]

Nah, when pressed, KKK will whip out the good-libertarian card and profess equal hatred for everybody.

[mattp]

I'm not sure what all that article posted by DeCristo adds up to, but I'll point out that when Justice Sanders was sworn in to the Washington Supreme Court, and immediately went out and gave a speech about how abortion is a crime and we really gotta stop it, the ACLU leaped to his defense when the Judicial Conduct Commission came down on him for it.

 

Sure, they are not a political. And yes, they promote theirselves as an organization. And yes, they need money to operate and will seek attorney's fees just like any other party in any legal dispute. So what?

[sexual_chocolate]

knee jerk my ass. the ACLU (and sleazy lawyers) have been pulling their bullshit for as long as I remember. I've had decades to formulate my opinion.

 

 

 

SILENCE EVERYONE!

 

Since kaskdfhsfhiwh has had decades to formulate an opinion, let us give him a chance to substantiate the conclusion he has arrived at!

 

Since I am a donating member of the ACLU, I will be the first to want to know what the organization has been up to, perhaps behind my back.

 

Please kaskadkkdhgidhg, LET US KNOW!

[mattp]

Lets get back to where KK, Puget and Fairweather explain why Rumsfeld or others in the Bush administration - including Bush himself - should not be held accountable for what they've done.

[StevenSeagal]

Nah, when pressed, KKK will whip out the good-libertarian card and profess equal hatred for everybody.

 

Yeah he'll just send you here:

 

APOCALYPSE NOW!!!!!!!!!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

knee jerk my ass. the ACLU (and sleazy lawyers) have been pulling their bullshit for as long as I remember. I've had decades to formulate my opinion.

 

... and you've got 10 minutes to back it up in this thread before everyone agrees you lost the argument.

 

I don't give a rat's ass if I convince any ACLU-supporting, God-hating, pinko losers on this list.

 

 

 

[JayB]

Is it possible for two groups seeking two very different ends to employ the same means without becoming moral equals of one another?

 

The tactics that the US and England employed against the civilians populations in, say, Germany were every bit as brutal and deadly as anything that the Germans air campaigns inflicted on England.

 

Since the two sides employed tactics that were physically equivalent - deliberately inflicting the maximum civilian carnage via bombing - then the two sides must be viewed as moral equals despite the very different ideals and ends that the Allies were striving for?

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Since I am a donating member of the ACLU,

 

again, no surprise there.

 

you guys just fit the stereotype so well.

[tvashtarkatena]

This 'gay rights movement' thing has got me worried. At first I thought, "OK, maybe I need to know more about the gays before a come to any conclusions. Maybe my initial revulsion, which can be pretty all consuming at times, is due to ignorance."

 

So I starting studying everything I could get my hands on that was gay: E, the 'AssMasters' DVD box set, ABBA, Prince Alberts, mandolins (both musical and culinary), anything from Patagonia, and before long, I knew my way around everything from a 'pink sock' to 'painting'.

 

Through all this, my wife has been less than understanding. Sure, it's been time consuming, but does that warrant her upping her private salsa lessons to five nights a week? She's so sore by the weekend that it's all she can do to drag herself to her weekly Jamaican message appointment. At least her masseuse sent me some body-building tips, but still.

 

Frankly, I'm starting to suspect that Bush is right. I'm starting to feel like just being exposed to the gay lifestyle is putting my marriage at risk. I don't know. I guess I need to find out more.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What about sleazy software engineers who spray while collecting pay?

 

It's BIG BUSINESS that is sleazy, remember? Get your story straight.

 

And salaried engineers are not paid on the clock.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Nah, when pressed, KKK will whip out the good-libertarian card and profess equal hatred for everybody.

 

Yeah he'll just send you here:

 

APOCALYPSE NOW!!!!!!!!!

 

Michael Savage is a sleazy jackass. And so is Ann Coulter. Let's see you say the same about someone on the left.

[olyclimber]

In the future, you'll be able to have real time discourse with those that object to your point of view.

[counterfeitfake]

I don't give a rat's ass if I convince any ACLU-supporting, God-hating, pinko losers on this list.

 

Well, how about convincing this moderate?

 

This is retarded. You could be making an argument but you're just spraying. It's like admitting that you just have an opinion that you can't back up. It's the same old shit you see from both sides, pointless sniping with no actual substance.

 

YOUR ALL RETARDED

[sexual_chocolate]

SILENCE EVERYONE!

 

Since kaskdfhsfhiwh has had decades to formulate an opinion, let us give him a chance to substantiate the conclusion he has arrived at!

 

Since I am a donating member of the ACLU, I will be the first to want to know what the organization has been up to, perhaps behind my back.

 

Please kaskadkkdhgidhg, LET US KNOW!

 

 

Please kaskadhfishfsfjh, I am asking for your help here. I am asking you to uncover the horrors that the ACLU are perpetrating on unsuspecting donors like me.

 

If you were to tell us about these horrors, others here at this website might be saved from walking down the same path of misfortune that I have chosen so unwittingly.

 

Please save the innocents by letting us know.

 

DO it for the others, if not for me.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't give a rat's ass if I convince any ACLU-supporting, God-hating, pinko losers on this list.

 

Well, how about convincing this moderate?

 

This is retarded. You could be making an argument but you're just spraying. It's like admitting that you just have an opinion that you can't back up. It's the same old shit you see from both sides, pointless sniping with no actual substance.

 

YOUR ALL RETARDED

 

Dude, this IS spray. WTF, you take this seriously??

 

[olyclimber]

its the way of the future

[mattp]

JayB

- there is no doubt that the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima were inhumane and by most standards immoral. But I doubt there are all that many who would argue that our use of such tactics rendered us the complete moral equivalent of Nazi Germany. And I would guess that if our general's had been tried for war crimes they would have had a substantial defense in the idea that their actions were justified in the circumstances. Most historians have reached that judgment, haven't they?

 

But what are historians going to say about Rumsfeld? Was he justified in allowing prisoners to be tortured? What do you say to my initial questions: should he be accountable?

[olyclimber]

just ask lindsay.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm sure part of the dislike for the ACLU is the perception shared by many (including myself) that their actions and agenda are not apolitical. Also, the argument of altruistic pro bono work is tainted by the profits gleaned from all taxpayers in pursuit of this perceived agenda.

 

Don't know what 'profits' you're talking about. The ACLU is a non-profit organization. Donations are not tax deductable.

 

The ACLU is the most apolitical organization I know of. It has to be to work on both sides of the isle. It has also provided legal services to some of the most right wing folks around, including Rush Limbaugh, and worked with some of the most right wing organizations, such as the Gun Owners of America. Since 911, the majority of its new members have come from conservative side of the political spectrum.

[prole]

Nah, when pressed, KKK will whip out the good-libertarian card and profess equal hatred for everybody.

 

Yeah he'll just send you here:

 

APOCALYPSE NOW!!!!!!!!!

 

Michael Savage is a sleazy jackass. And so is Ann Coulter. Let's see you say the same about someone on the left.

 

Joseph Stalin and Arianna Huffington. Your turn.

[olyclimber]

well my memo clearly states that ALCU=BAD, so until you prove to me otherwise, I'm sticking to my guns.

[underworld]

guns are for hugging

[sexual_chocolate]

that's it kaskadksfhihfghkd, breathe.

 

Nice and easy, breeeaaaathe.

 

Nothing allows one to approach a problem with new innocent freshness, free of prejudices and blind spots, than a nice deep breath.