ACLU Sells out 1st amendment for 200k.

www.wnd.com...

This is how the aclu profits on destroying your freedoms.
I have to say this evil is formidable.


Aclu files lawsuit lawsuit dropped for 200k, they agree to the below. Case close.


"Students can no longer say 'God Bless,' teachers must hide in closets to pray, parents cannot communicate frankly with teachers, volunteers cannot answer any questions regarding religion, Christian groups cannot rent school facilities for private religious functions benefiting students, and pastors are dictated how they can and cannot seat their audiences at private, religious baccalaureate services held inside their own houses of worship," Liberty Counsel said.

It's seriously disheartening that the ACLU has virtually become the embodiment of the very ideals that they once claimed to oppose. Oh well, as is in our deteriorating society, "What else is new?"

I prescribe to no organized religion in any way, shape or form - but absolutely nothing of what any representatives from this school did could even be considered questionable in my opinion.

The ACLU is nothing more than a collective of money-hungry progressivist lawyers now - the equivalent of moral ambulance chasers. The sooner this organization's greed and true motives are exposed on a massive scale, the sooner people in this society can wash their hands of them.

it seems more and more that the administrations, are becoming a domestic threat to peace . Rather than the a purveyor of the liberties we declared in 1776.

To be fair to the ACLU, there is a saying in the law that goes " a bad settlement is better than a good litigation." Litigation is risky. The ACLU and the interests it claims to represent may be better off walking away with $200K than litigating and losing.

Another thing the ACLU may be interested is developing good case law. In order to develop good case law, you have pick cases whose factual circumstances are just right. The ACLU may have felt that the facts of this particular case may not have led to good case law. It may choose to litigate other cases that have more favorable fact patterns all the way to the Supreme Court.

People wonder why the ACLU has such a tainted reputation - all they have to do is look to cases like these. It makes anything they do, like defending the Alabama lesbian teen, look like nothing more than a money-grabbing organization that never wastes a good crisis to profit.

In a word: Sickening!

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


I hope you are right.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
To be fair to the ACLU, there is a saying in the law that goes " a bad settlement is better than a good litigation." Litigation is risky. The ACLU and the interests it claims to represent may be better off walking away with $200K than litigating and losing.

Another thing the ACLU may be interested is developing good case law. In order to develop good case law, you have pick cases whose factual circumstances are just right. The ACLU may have felt that the facts of this particular case may not have led to good case law. It may choose to litigate other cases that have more favorable fact patterns all the way to the Supreme Court.

Let's be completely fair to the ACLU and question why it is they choose to frame the inalienable right to speech as a "civil liberty" and what exactly they mean by "civil liberty". The worst thing a lawyer could do, in this climate where lawyers themselves will use aliases that seem to make light of the perception of lawyers, is to defend the political machinations of other lawyers, and to quote insider platitudes that speak more to the profitability of their efforts than the nobility of their cause. Litigation is risky? Declaring Independence from a tyrant was risky. Therein lies the difference between a prosperous lawyer and one who will fight for what is just. Thank God, our Founders found more cause to fight for what was right, than what might have been prosperous for they alone.

That said, I find wisdom in your second paragraph and it seems as if there is much case law, easily found to be bad, that stands as precedent today, and in all likelihood stems from bad litigation. However, where lawyers like to spout aphorisms such as a bad settlement is better than good litigation, bad litigation is bad litigation, and if the ACLU can not offer up good litigation, and when they can adhere to nonsensical platitudes to justify profits, then what good are they?

[edit on 6-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

The only place the ACLU has a bad rep is with right wingers and the enablers like wnd.com The ACLU is the protector of our freedoms and you should feel lucky they exist.

Originally posted by damwel
The only place the ACLU has a bad rep is with right wingers and the enablers like wnd.com The ACLU is the protector of our freedoms and you should feel lucky they exist.

Protector of our freedoms? So where is the ACLU while this is going down?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They won't take the case because

1. The would be representing straight, white people
2. They don't stand to make any money off the situation

Feel lucky they exist MY @$$! The ACLU has done more damage than good for Constitutional rights in this nation through their hipocricy!

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
To be fair to the ACLU, there is a saying in the law that goes " a bad settlement is better than a good litigation." Litigation is risky. The ACLU and the interests it claims to represent may be better off walking away with $200K than litigating and losing.

Boooooo.

This is exactly why the field of law has become so disrespected. What you have described, in the quote, is nothing less than strong arm tactics, reminiscent of the heydays of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jimmy Hoffa and......Tony Soprano (used as an example just because some will know T.S., but not have a clue who J.H. was).

This bastardization of the legal system, often, stains what might have been a legitimate cause. It is disgusting for attorneys to throw lawsuits against the wall, just to see what sticks, knowing the deep pocketed defendant will cough up something, rather than accept the burden of a full on defense.

reply to post by sos37


You are sadly mistaken. Defending liberties appeals to both parties, so its not a party issue.

There is however an issue, when a lawsuit is filed to defend civil liberties,then the lawsuit is negotiated out of court for money, and they agree to the same abuse they filed a lawsuit to stop.

If this case is anything how i described that is theft.

However I can understand in small situations that you would cut your losses because of evidence or witnesses not testifying ect,but to take the loot and agree to the whole reason you filed the lawsuit disturbing.

I don't really see where any wing would come into play here.

That is like saying, taxing U.S. citizens at gunpoint and giving the money to Greece ,then Greece pays the international bankers like Goldman Sach to get out of debt, to get out of debt is perfectly moral we all know it is not.

If a guy kicks in your door at gunpoint to rob you , he does not ask you if you are a right winger or left winger or repub,dem.
They say give me all your money.

reply to post by TaxpayersUnleashed

You are sadly mistaken. Defending liberties appeals to both parties, so its not a party issue.

Defending liberties may appeal to both parties, although I don't buy that for a single second, but paying lip service to defending liberties is the best either party has shown. Indeed, both parties have just as equally and zealously done what they can to diminish liberties.

I don't really see where any wing would come into play here.

Perhaps you're not looking hard enough. Let us look at their own website to get a better idea of where they stand. First, consider what they say about themselves in general:

"So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy."

~ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin~

This appears to be their signature statement. Here is a bit more:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

Take note how they claim to be in defense of individual rights, yet make clear these rights and liberties are things that have been created by Constitution and subsequent laws. Hence, civil liberties, or civil rights. There is a clear difference between civil rights and natural rights, and I will address that a bit later, but first let's continue with this about the ACLU page. They continue by listing what rights are included in "civil rights":

These rights include:

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

* Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.

* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. * Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

They follow this short list with this statement:

The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities.

So, while they claim to be in defense of individual rights, the don't take long in admitting that they are in the business of "extending" rights to "segments of our population" or groups. The ACLU is perhaps the loudest proponents of naming special rights such as "women rights", "gay rights", "prisoner rights" and so on, as if they are some sort of rights separate from the rest of us. Rights are rights, and if one person has them then all people have them, but that is a Natural Law view, seemingly in opposition to the ACLU's stance that rights are "civil" or statutory rights created by government. This is a bent. A wing, if you will.

I am not saying the ACLU should be bipartisan, they have every right to take whatever stance they want, but that they themselves declare they are bipartisan, one has the reasonable expectation of bipartisan action. But even bipartisan is a term loosely used these days. I should at this point point out, that in the list of rights the ACLU claimed to defend, they did not mention the right to keep and bear arms. What is their stance on this? Consider this ACLU Blog of Rights:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

Again, here is a group claiming to defend the rights of individuals, unless that means the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, then they have a quite noticeable and different bent on what constitutes individual rights, and that bent sure as hell ain't right wing. The ACLU, of course, has every right to disagree with The SCOTUS ruling they refer to, but their assertion that ruling is a "historic reinterpretation" of the 2nd Amendment is willful reinterpretation of history itself. Let us go back into history and read what the Founders had to say about this right:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

~George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788~

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

~Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution~

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188~

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28~

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "

~Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)~

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

~James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46~

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

~Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)~

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

~Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788~

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."

~Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788~

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

~Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356~

These are just a few examples of Founders words on the matter and there are many more, but what has been quoted should be enough to reveal that when it comes to interpreting history, either the ACLU are a bunch of incompetent, ignorant boobs, or they are counting on us being incompetent, ignorant boobs. Either way, they're left wing bent is fairly evident.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


To quote two additional important Americans

He said boobs! Cool!

...Beavis and Butthead
Sorry, I just like to add a little levity here and there...

...either the ACLU are a bunch of incompetent, ignorant boobs, or they are counting on us being incompetent, ignorant boobs.

You are, once again, exactly correct. Not only do they count on it, they actually have convinced themselves of it. I suspect a portion of law school is dedicated to the art of self aggrandizement. We, mere mortals, are incapable of understanding The Law.



[edit on 6-5-2010 by WTFover]