Replies

Like who? Poor Christians who want to pray on public property? Sorry, afraid not.

Yes, absolutely. If they were arrested and were without funds to hire private counsel, the Criminal Defense Division of LAS would represent them.

The Legal Aid Society, like the ACLU, is a well-known leftist front. I don't have time now (have to leave for several hours) to do an exposition on this, but maybe someone else can stop your head from spinning...

They represent people accused by the government of some criminal act. They make the government prove its case before the government can take the freedom of people away. The bottom line is a basic distrust of government, and to me that is a principle of conservatism.

They make the government prove its case before the government can take the freedom of people away

No, sorry. The Legal Aid Society IS the government; and it doesn't work to protect our freedoms - IT WORKS TO TAKE AWAY OUR MONEY AND RESDISTRIBUTE IT TO LEFT WING PET PROJECTS.

Legal Aid Societies, around the country, are funded by the "Legal Services Corporation" -- which is a federal program leeching off OUR TAX MONEY.

This is all I have time to post for now. Read this and weep: The real cost of the Legal Services Corporation.

excerpt:

President Clinton proposes to spend $415 million in his budget next year for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). But this does not begin to measure the real costs of the LSC. That $415 million goes to fund a legal and political crusade by left-wing lawyers and political activists to hold up middle-class taxpayers for unbounded income redistribution and welfare schemes.
From the beginning, a principal avowed purpose of the Legal Services movement has been "law reform." That means changing the law wherever possible to suit the left-wing ideology of the Legal Services activists. The very essence of that ideology is class warfare, organizing tax-users, as a class, against tax-payers, for the purpose of taking from those who have, to give to those who don't.
This is all the more insidious because these left-wing activists can bring their cases before left-wing judges, whose avowed legal philosophy is not to rule in accordance with their personal biases. Their rulings then serve as precedents.