Replies

"Straw man argument. [...] Posting only the times where the ACLU ended up strengthening the Constitution does not take into account the source of Freeper's point of dispute, namely, the cases in which they defended all sorts of anti-Constitutional positions."

In post #28 to which I was replying, montag813 describes the ACLU as a "America-hating terror group" on a "jihad to ... subvert the Constitution"

And this, by the way, was in response to my original claim that much of the hostility towards the ACLU on FR stems from ignorance.

Apparently you agree, since you suggest that in every case listed in post #46 the ACLU successfully strengthened the Constitution and that the only judicious complaint a Freeper could have is that in other cases one might (and many here do) disagree with their position on the Constitution.

Now, if you're suggesting that montag813 is a straw man easily blown over, I might agree with you. But that's evidence for my original claim: there's a great deal of hostility towards the ACLU on FR, but very little of it is well-informed.

As Emerson put it:

... A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, much beloved of small statesmen and divines....

From Self-Reliance

Ok. You win. The ACLU is concerned only with the rights of individuals. They have no agenda. They care only for the Constitution. They passionately serve the law and have no bias whatsoever. They are beyond reproach. The Constitution AND our Republic would be doomed without the ACLU. We would be in a North American equivelent of Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia, or Pol Pot's Cambodia if the ACLU did not ram their view of a "living constitution" down our throats.

The ACLU has NEVER argued a case that could in any way be interpreted as anything but upholding the Constitution and the rights of citizens to be free of government interference. They remain seated upon a cloud of impartiality.

Happy now?

Now, if you're suggesting that montag813 is a straw man easily blown over, I might agree with you. But that's evidence for my original claim: there's a great deal of hostility towards the ACLU on FR, but very little of it is well-informed.

I am still waiting for your response to my post #69 on the 1975 O'Connor v Donaldson case, which you are proud of, and which is universally reviled (even among former supporters like Geraldo Rivera) as having almost single-handedly CREATED the "Homeless crisis" through forced de-institutionalization of the mentally ill, in addition to the countless murders and assaults resulting from the tens of thousands of unmedicated crazies running around amongst us.

How did this ruling "strengthen the Constitution", as you so proudly proclaim? Will you ignore these facts and just hurl insults at me? Do I have to go through the entire list and refute them one by one? So I have to list the cases in which the ACLU subverted the Constitution via the Plaintiff's bar...bankrupting defendant schools and organization into submission and settlement?

.....Now, if you're suggesting that montag813 is a straw man easily blown over, I might agree with you. But that's evidence for my original claim: there's a great deal of hostility towards the ACLU on FR, but very little of it is well-informed.

93 posted on 08/21/2003 9:16 AM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian

I agreei if the people were informed as to the goal of the alcu, the hostility would be turned to hatred of the alcu.