Posted on 12/19/2006 10:42:12 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Nope, it's the UN Charter.
There's a difference?
There's a difference?
The city set up a legal defense fund at www.escondido.org. The fund took in about 350 bucks.
If we're ever going to counter the pernicious influence of the ACLU, there's going to have to be a non-profit organization set up to reimburse local communities for the costs of fighting them. There's lots of entities that'll file a friend of the court brief, but that doesn't help deal with the real problem, which is the ACLU's ability to run up the meter on anybody that opposes it.
The real key to effectiveness is the formation of a group that pays the bills for those who want to put a stop to this extortionate mis-use of our federal courts. That's an organization I could contribute to.
The ordinance contained full due process protections, including a multi-step appeals process.
they are trying to run our lives-i hope sometimes for chaos because they will have brought it on and they WLL pay for it
Sadly, that doesn't stop them, they claim disparate impact and use that to get in the courthouse door. There's some pretty solid case law that holds that disparate impact is not discriminatory, but you have to get to the appeals stage to get some thoughtful consideration of that issue and by then you're half a million bucks in.
They're only worried about "costs" when it affects a portion of their political agenda.
Nothing makes me sicker than democrats complaining about what something "costs".
Yes, do some research and read all about it.
How do you spell EXTORTION?
Oh.
I see.
ACLU is now handing out warnings?
ACLU means AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union. Not ILLEGAL MEXICAN Civil Liberties Union. That would the the IMCLU.
The case actually turned on practicality. The ordinance was complaint-driven, and provided that, upon a complaint being filed, the city would ask the landlord to provide ID for his tenants. The city would then check that ID against the ICE database.
Turned out, a city can only use the database for determining the status of those who are applying for a public benefit.
So... the ACLU had succeeded in convincing the judge to issue a restraining order until a trial on a permanent injunction could occur. The trial was due in March. In his order granting the TRO, the judge made clear that the practicality issue was a significant one. He also raised questions about the way in which the city had adopted the ordinance on procedural grounds. Both of those looked difficult to surmount.
In reality, the constitutional merits of the case was never fully considered. In other words, you're right, no case, but some technical problems. Two hundred grand in, it didn't seem worth fighting a sure loser when there were cleaner approaches available.
Amazing that the ACLU is allowed to continued their tactics of threats and extortion of law abiding citizens while at the same time they rise to the defense of pedophiles and other criminals.
“If they even get close to this topic again, we will look at it with a microscope,” Blair-Loy said yesterday in response to the comments. “If we do have to sue them, it will be a lot more painful experience than it was the first time . . . they may not have such a quick, easy, painless exit from the case.”
In this case (as in many) the ACLU is taking an end run around the democratic process by issuing an extortion type threat against the city, even after the said legislation would have the issues the ACLU objects to removed. It's not the consitutionality of the legislation the ACLU has the problem with, it's the legislation itself. The words of the ACLU attorneys are there for all to see, their intent can not be twisted, spun, or negated in any way. I for one, am happy they said them, for they show that they and their supporters are enemies of the Bill of Rights, not defenders.
I suspect you avoided the issue because you don't want to admit you and the ACLU are wrong, and you find the ACLU sueing taxpayers on behalf of illegal aliens embarassing. Then again, maybe you support the ACLU extorting taxpayers and taking away their rights to a representative government. Most likely a combination of the two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.