[Avoiding_Sulla]

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.

[Congressman Billybob]

All the briefs in the McConnell case are on the Supreme Court website. Go to: www.supremecourtus.gov Click on "Campaign Finance Case." Then scroll down to "Amicus Briefs." Mine is the one for the American Civil Rights Union (not to be confused with the ACLU).

It was a strong brief. It did no good, unfortunately.

John / Billybob

[aristeides]

If SCOTUS rules for Newdow, it will really be tempting fate. There will come a point when people will be fed up with its decisions.