I write a monthly piece of legal analysis (too dry and boring to post on FreeRepublic, LOL) with the continuing title, "ACLU Watch." Normally I attack the ACLU for the positions it takes. However, when the ACLU actually does what it claims as its purpose, "defend the Constitution," I praise it.
I wrote up McConnell v. FEC about six months ago, when the Supreme Court first took the case. In that write-up I praised the ACLU for its position in this particular case. I have been in constitutional litigation with the ACLU -- sometimes on the same side, sometimes on the opposite side. I give credit where credit's due. They are able allies, and fearsome opponents, depending on the case.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "In Praise of Bigotry," discussion thread. (ChronWatch used a longer title than my original.)
However, when the ACLU actually does what it claims as its purpose, "defend the Constitution," I praise it. Aside from that appearing (to skeptical me) far too infrequently, my next question is: "for what nefarious reason OTHER than the obvious, is the RICO eligible ACLU on our side?" Let me put it more plainly still: Had the KGB gifted a horse to Nixon in 1952, I would have given it less scrutiny than that same gift-horse, to me personally, from the ACLU today.
I wrote up McConnell v. FEC about six months ago, when the Supreme Court first took the case. Is that linkable? And, well, now, can you tell us if their efforts helped or hindered?
Let me be blunt again: They have a stronger connection to SCOTUS (via Bader-Ginsburg) than the mob had to JFK (via his father).
As in I fear the Neudow (Scalia recused) case may be greeted by a non-recused Bader-Ginsburg like a spider does a fly.