Replies

1975 O'Connor v. Donaldson The Court's first ruling on the rights of mental patients supported a non-violent man who had been confined against his will in a state hospital for 15 years. Mental illness alone, said the Court, could not justify "simple custodial confinement" on an indefinite basis.

Interesting that you celebrate this "victory for the rights of mental patients", given that this case is now notorious for leading to the mass de-institutionalization which created the "Homeless" crisis and led to people like Andrew Goldstein, who pushed a woman to her death in front of a NYC subway "N" train because he couldn't be held despite his doctor's assertions that his scizophrenia posed a "dangerous" risk to others. This ruling let crazy people out, with the "freedom" to come back to take their medication. The problem is many of them did not, and hundreds of people have been murdered as a result.

Geraldo Rivera lobbied strongly for this case at the time and now repudiates it. You were talking about ignorance...you demonstrate it brilliantly here.

The ACLU is a disgusting band of jihadists bent of the destruction of religion, morality and decency anywhere and everywhere they find it in the United States.

Your claim is that the ACLU is on a jihad to subvert the constitution. I offered you a long list spanning decades of important cases in which the ACLU was a party and asked you to say in which ones you thought they were subverting the Constitution.

Is your answer that there is only one such example from that list?

And the example is a case which the court held that mental illness alone could not justify confinement on an indefinite basis?

And from there you want to introduce the claim that "The ACLU is a disgusting band of jihadists bent of the destruction of religion, morality and decency anywhere and everywhere they find it in the United States."?

Please answer so we can all be clear on your response to the question I asked you in post #46.

PS. I'm taking it easy on you by not asking wether the mental illness case was the work of "marxist judges". As I'm sure you know, in the USSR courts routinely confined people for "mental illness" and that power, on the part of the state, was an important tool for suppressing dissent, so the marxist position on the power of the state would never lead a judge to accept the ACLU's position which sets strict LIMITS on the power of the state ...