Who else can not stand the liberal agenda?

[gravenewworld]

-SS
-amnesty for illegals
-"Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"
-ACLU
-Affirmative Action
-economy

to just name a few things


I am glad that I am an INDEPENDENT. As a scientist myself, I am glad that I haven't fallen for the liberal pitfall like so many of the other scientists out there who claim that they are "open minded" when in reality the only way they look at things is from a skewed liberal perspective. I am also glad and will not be afraid at all to go against the grain of 90% of the people on this board who are pretty much liberal, even if it pisses off the liberal mods.

 

[russ_watters]

I am the resident outspoken republican, and I would agree that the Democratic party pushes the extreme issues, but just for fun, I see that the same works for the Republican party:

-NRA
-Abortion
-Corporate welfare
-Farm subsidies
-Stem Cells (euthenasia, Terry Schaivo, etc. - these are actually related to the abortion issue)
-Various religious issues

It seems to me that both sides play to those in extreme of their party. The reality is that most people who donate money are to the outside of the mainstream, so that's who they target their ideas to. That creates a particular problem (and we've seen examples of the doublespeak here) that during election season, they must pull money from their base of diehards while seeming centrist enough to get the independent/undecided vote.

That aside, it doesn't sound to me like you are an "independent" per se, just an independent-minded liberal. It sounds like you are fed up with a party that should, but doesn't fit your needs. I'm largely the mirror of that on the other side of the fence.

 

[gravenewworld]

I am the resident outspoken republican, and I would agree that the Democratic party pushes the extreme issues, but just for fun, I see that the same works for the Republican party:

-NRA
-Abortion
-Corporate welfare
-Farm subsidies
-Stem Cells (euthenasia, Terry Schaivo, etc. - these are actually related to the abortion issue)
-Various religious issues

It seems to me that both sides play to those in extreme of their party. The reality is that most people who donate money are to the outside of the mainstream, so that's who they target their ideas to. That creates a particular problem (and we've seen examples of the doublespeak here) that during election season, they must pull money from their base of diehards while seeming centrist enough to get the independent/undecided vote.

That aside, it doesn't sound to me like you are an "independent" per se, just an independent-minded liberal. It sounds like you are fed up with a party that should, but doesn't fit your needs. I'm largely the mirror of that on the other side of the fence.

I also can not stand the Rep. stance on those issues. There really doesn't exist a "true" independent, but rather people who lie slightly to the left or slightly to the right. I will admit that I am oh so slightly to the left. But I CAN'T STAND all the liberal crap I hear from a lot of scientists at work, in industry, and during my undergrad education.

 

[ShawnD]

-ACLU

Now that you've admitted you hate America and its constitution, the feds will be at your door shortly :tongue:
(the ACLU is a group that strictly defends the constitution)


Anyway, what are your specific concerns? You listed "-economy" which I don't quite understand.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can stand the ACLU most of the time, and I don't know what you (gnw) mean by "economy". From Russ' list I can stand some versions of the abortion argument, but those versions are not at all common among typical conservatives.

 

[drankin]

Now that you've admitted you hate America and its constitution, the feds will be at your door shortly :tongue:
(the ACLU is a group that strictly defends the constitution)

Do you actually believe that?

 

[ShawnD]

Do you actually believe that?

Most of the time. They often get carried away with stupid little things that nobody should care about, like that "happy holidays" thing on the basis of it being government imposed religion. That kind of political correctness happens in Canada too, even though our constitution does not separate church and state, and it really disturbs me even though I'm not a christian. I don't go around calling the menorah a "holiday candle", so why should a christmas tree be called a "holiday tree"; it just boggles the mind.

They have taken some pretty hard line stands, and their arguments can be upsetting while they very strictly follow the constitution. A few on wiki are:

1). Pedophiles convicted before Megan’s Law should not receive retroactive application of Megan's Law.
Megan's Law is basically a law that requires sex offenders to advertise they are sex offenders. Megan's Law is constitutional, but retroactive applicaiton is not. Think of it like this: if alcohol were to become illegal tomorrow, you cannot be charged for drinking a beer today because it was not yet illegal to drink a beer. Your constitution clearly states that retroactive punishment is unconstitutional.

2). ACLU defended Oliver North (Iran Contra *******) because he was forced to testify against himself.
The 5th amendment states that nobody can be forced to testify against oneself. This guy probably deserves the chair, but it's not worth throwing your constitution down the toilet just to get 1 guy. If it's ok to ignore that amendment for one person, why not everyone else?

3). ACLU defended some retarded church group's right to protest a funeral with slanderous signs.
The idea here is that you should not be able to stop peaceful protest. A free society is built on the right to protest.


They do what they can to stop bad rulings from becoming the standard. Torture should not be used against anybody, so they defend the most evil person to prove a point. The right to protest was put in place to protect speech that people didn't want to hear, because you don't need a law to protect speech people love to hear. Nobody should be forced to incriminate themselves, because then what is the point of having a trial in the first place? People seem to forget that the rules in the constitution were put there for a reason. Founding fathers didn't just arbitrarily make up some ground rules that can be bent and manipulated whenever the hell you feel like it.

edit: if you search for ACLU on youtube, you'll find a bunch of skits from the Half-Hour News Hour. I don't know if I've seen all the videos, but all the ones I've seen are factually correct.

 

[russ_watters]

(the ACLU is a group that strictly defends the constitution).

Correction: the ACLU is a group that strictly defends the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Correction: the ACLU is a group that strictly defends the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution.

Do you have an example of where the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution is different from your own?

 

[ShawnD]

Do you have an example of where the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution is different from your own?

Their interpretation of the second amendment is a little screwy, but they've promised to stay neutral on that issue.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Their interpretation of the second amendment is a little screwy, but they've promised to stay neutral on that issue.

What is their interpretation of the second amendment, and what is yours?

 

[ShawnD]

The second amendment says "people" have the right to have arms. In every other place in the constitution, people = citizens. The ACLU has chosen to interpet people as meaning state-run militia. The stupid part is that the "militia" is defined as being basically everyone, yet the ACLU ignores this and remains neutral on the issue. So much for that amendment; it's not as important as the others anyway

definition of "militia" according to wordweb
1). Civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army - reserves
2). The entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

With all the time spent fighting against christmas trees, they forgot to buy a dictionary.

 

[kach22i]

Someone should be defending the Constitution.

If left to the Executive branch or Congress the Constitution would be a distant memory or an Urban Legend.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The second amendment says "people" have the right to have arms. In every other place in the constitution, people = citizens. The ACLU has chosen to interpet people as meaning state-run militia.

You interpret the second amendment to mean that all the people have the right to bear arms. The ACLU interprets the second amendment to mean that only people in state-run militias have the right to bear arms. Do I get you right? If not, please clarify. Has the Supreme court handed down any decisions that agree with your interpretation, or do they side with the screwy one?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Jimmy Snyder! Here is something that is wrong with Democrats - your argument style. Rather than debating by raising points, you would rather pick fly-feces out of pepper. Many of the points raised by the right-wing posters have been well though out and bring new ideas to the floor. What have you brought, exactly?

If you have an issue with another poster's opinion, rather than trying to attack their opinion one example at a time, come up with examples yourself. Who cares what his interpretation of the second amendment is? If the ACLU does not have an accurate view of any part of the Constitution, it is worth questioning.

All of this having been said, the ACLU does have many skewed views and are willing to, in many cases, cast aside courtesy and basic human tolerance and dignity for the sake of a small group's rights. In the grand scheme, very few of their actions do good for us all. Now, you may reply with something to the effect of, "Isn't defending the Constitution good for everyone?" Here's your answer: no. If the general population feels strongly about one way of doing anything, and that disagrees with the fundamentals of the Constitution, then the Constitution no longer represents America as a whole, does it?

Radical as that idea may be, it is my personal opinion. And the ACLU says I have the right to have that opinion :rofl:

Moreover, the liberal agenda is messed up. Important issues are being cast aside over something like Global Warming. I hate to break it to anyone who still believes we can change Global Warming, like a teenager still waiting up for Santa Claus, but the Earth simply goes through change. We have been through more than one Ice Age, for example. What does this show? The Earth gets hotter and colder periodically. Now, I'm not saying that people don't expedite the process, but eventually the Earth is going to be hot. And it's going to be cold again, too. Rather, we should be working on ways to cut pollution, something that the Earth doesn't do to itself naturally.

I digress... the point is, if any liberal took the time to really think about a subject, they would realize that there are more important things to be concerned about than what they are willing to philibuster about for hours and waste time with.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Someone should be defending the Constitution.

If left to the Executive branch or Congress the Constitution would be a distant memory or an Urban Legend.

For real!? The Constitution was formed by the same founding fathers that created these branches. To lose faith in one, is to lose faith in the other...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy Snyder! What have you brought, exactly?

Naught but questions. I'm sorry they made you mad.

If you have an issue with another poster's opinion, rather than trying to attack their opinion one example at a time, come up with examples yourself.

What makes you think I have an issue with anyone's opinion? Which of my questions do you consider to be attacks?

Who cares what his interpretation of the second amendment is?

Me. That's why I asked.

If the ACLU does not have an accurate view of any part of the Constitution, it is worth questioning.

Of course.

If the general population feels strongly about one way of doing anything, and that disagrees with the fundamentals of the Constitution, then the Constitution no longer represents America as a whole, does it?

This is a strawman argument. The issue is not whether the Constitution represents America as a whole (whatever that means), but rather whether the Constitution is still the law of the land.

 

[Gokul43201]

For real!? The Constitution was formed by the same founding fathers that created these branches. To lose faith in one, is to lose faith in the other...

For real?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Here's the deal, Jimmy. First, don't edit or paraphrase my quotes.

Second, all you did there was do exactly what I said Democrats do. You waved your hands and said "Look over here!" in the all areas you wanted everyone to look, and then tried to attack select pieces of my argument.

And very clearly, each one of your posts disagreed with the previous poster's politics. Politics are opinion. So maybe you never said, "Gee, I disagree with that opinion." But simple logic says you do.

And in response to what you believe of my "strawman argument:" Why is America a free country? Because its populace rebelled against an unfair series of laws that barred them from representation and economic freedom. If the Constitution ever became a hindrance rather than a protection against injustice, then it should very much so be ignored.

[Not that I am saying that is currently the case, seeing as the document is still the cornerstone for our society.]

This being said, you say that the question is whether or not the Constitution is still the law of the land. Well, then, why does the ACLU also seek to change laws they feel are unfair? Are not those laws also "laws of the land"?

And I thank you for agreeing that questioning what is wrong with the ACLU is appropriate. But you forgot to address the part before that about how their views are currently skewed. Comments on how to fix a private organization that takes interpreting the laws into its own hands?

BTW - we already have an organization that determines whether laws are appropriate or adequate. It is known as the Supreme Court. And if memory serves, some of the greatest movements ended there. Say, Brown vs. Board of Education. Why does the ACLU think it is their task to do what the justice system already does?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

For real?

Yes, for real.

If you honestly can't trust in one part of the government structure set in place, then you shouldn't be able to trust any part of it. All of the pieces are set in place to work in conjunction with one another, or at least that's what I've been taught since fourth grade.

I just simply do not feel that any aspect of the government can be dismissed without dismissing that whole thing. It would be like pulling a piece out of a house of cards. It's bound to come tumbling down.

 

[ShawnD]

You interpret the second amendment to mean that all the people have the right to bear arms. The ACLU interprets the second amendment to mean that only people in state-run militias have the right to bear arms. Do I get you right?

Yes, that is correct.

Has the Supreme court handed down any decisions that agree with your interpretation, or do they side with the screwy one?

This website about guns seems to have some information about court rulings, but I don't have time right now to read through it all. It seems like there are few federal laws about guns since each state has drastically different gun laws. What's important about gun laws, and probably the most interesting, is that states themselves are not required to allow things that are allowed under federal law. http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1748/Court-Rulings-on-Firearms-SECOND-AMENDMENT-INTERPRETATIONS.html writes it as:

Under this interpretation, for example, a state did not have to allow free speech (a First Amendment right) unless the state's constitution guaranteed that right. If the state constitution did not guarantee the right of free speech, state or local authorities could arrest a person indulging in free speech, but federal law-enforcement officials could not, because they were restricted by the Bill of Rights.

The opposite of this is true as well. Medical marijuana is legal under California state law, so california officials will leave you alone. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, so federal officers can still jail you for life. Your guns may be allowed under federal law, but state laws can still restrict those rights. You could probably show your cool new gun to an FBI agent without going to jail, but a state trooper could see that gun and lock you up.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I went on the ACLU website to find out if their stance is what ShawnD claims. He is correct. Here is a url to one page on their site: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html". They claim to be neutral. I assume that means that if your rights in this area are abridged, the ACLU will not come to your aid.

I was surprised to find that there is no mention of the issue on their home page http://www.aclu.com" , even though they do have a long shopping list of issues. This supports the view that they are willing to protect only the parts of the constitution that they like. But do they prevent others from doing so? For instance, have they prevented the NRA from supporting the second amendment?

The correct attitude to this is easy to find. Keep the ACLU, since it supports those parts of the constitution it likes, and also keep those groups who support the other parts. This makes more sense to me than to say that we don't need anyone to protect our rights unless they are willing to protect them all. Does the NRA do as much to protect all the constitution as they do for the second amendment?

Edit - bottom line, I am surprised that the case made against the ACLU is not that they do too much to protect our rights, but that they don't do enough.

 

[t-money]

The second amendment says "people" have the right to have arms. In every other place in the constitution, people = citizens. The ACLU has chosen to interpet people as meaning state-run militia. The stupid part is that the "militia" is defined as being basically everyone, yet the ACLU ignores this and remains neutral on the issue. So much for that amendment; it's not as important as the others anyway

definition of "militia" according to wordweb
1). Civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army - reserves
2). The entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

With all the time spent fighting against christmas trees, they forgot to buy a dictionary.

Key point of the 2nd ammendment is the right of individuals to bare arms and form militia. Why one might wonder it so that an oppressive government doesn't take away your fundamental rights (liberty,private poperty everything else the constitution gurantees after teh 2nd) of the citizens. The ACLU doe not acknowledge the 2nd Ammendment in it's entirety or purpose, avoiding a hostile take over by some know it all dictator.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you have an example of where the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution is different from your own?

Sure. Here's a list of the most recent cases involving or commented on by the ACLU. I disagree with their stance on the most recent three and didn't look any further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_court_cases_involving_the_American_Civil_Liberties_Union

But that's besides the point. *I* do not have the authority to say what is and isn't Constitutional and neither does the ACLU. That's the job of the US Supreme Court - which, by the way, also disagreed with the ACLU in all three of those cases. It would seem that the ACLU has trouble interpreting the Constitution.

 

[russ_watters]

Someone should be defending the Constitution.

If left to the Executive branch or Congress the Constitution would be a distant memory or an Urban Legend.

In the United States of America, it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and ensure that enacted laws follow it.

 

[russ_watters]

You interpret the second amendment to mean that all the people have the right to bear arms. The ACLU interprets the second amendment to mean that only people in state-run militias have the right to bear arms. Do I get you right? If not, please clarify. Has the Supreme court handed down any decisions that agree with your interpretation, or do they side with the screwy one?

Clearly, at the moment, the USSC disagrees with the ACLU on that issue.

They claim to be neutral. I assume that means that if your rights in this area are abridged, the ACLU will not come to your aid.

Yes, that is related to what I said - not only do they decide for themselves what side of an issue to support, they also decide which issues to support. The ACLU is composed primarily of liberals. Liberals tend to be anti-second Amendment. The ACLU knows that their interpretation (maybe not an interpretation, maybe just wishful thinking about how it should be?) is at odds with the USSC and history, so they don't go out on a limb to work on the issue.

 

[gravenewworld]

YAY for the ACLU defending for our right to have kiddie porn.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

458 U.S. 747
New York v. Ferber
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 81-55 Argued: April 27, 1982 --- Decided: July 2, 1982

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html



The ACLU is probably one of the most vile organizations that exists today.

 

[ShawnD]

Sure. Here's a list of the most recent cases involving or commented on by the ACLU. I disagree with their stance on the most recent three and didn't look any further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_court_cases_involving_the_American_Civil_Liberties_Union.

Morse vs Frederick:
"In 2002, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick was suspended from the high school where he was a senior after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska, during the Winter Olympics torch relay."

Seems a bit weird, but I don't see anything illegal about what he did. It's not slander, it's not hateful, and it's not vulgar. I can see why the ACLU would defend him.


The other two cases, about late-term abortion, seem to have nothing to do with the constition. ACLU going off the deep end again.

edit: Laws are ruled by courts, but it's the job of groups like the ACLU to bring these cases to court in the first place. If nobody challenged laws (which costs lots of money), the judiciary branch of the government would be essentially useless because there would be nothing to rule on.

 

[russ_watters]

Morse vs Frederick:
"In 2002, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick was suspended from the high school where he was a senior after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska, during the Winter Olympics torch relay."

Seems a bit weird, but I don't see anything illegal about what he did. It's not slander, it's not hateful, and it's not vulgar. I can see why the ACLU would defend him.

The court decided that since it was a school-sanctioned event and the message was directly contradictory to a mission of the school, that it was not protected.

edit: Laws are ruled by courts, but it's the job of groups like the ACLU to bring these cases to court in the first place. If nobody challenged laws (which costs lots of money), the judiciary branch of the government would be essentially useless because there would be nothing to rule on.

That's true, but you would think that an organization who'se stated purpose is to uphold the Bill of Rights would have a better track record in litigation on such issues.

That said, the current court is a more conservative one, so their view of what the founding fathers intended is understandably different from the ACLU's (which was my initial point about this - everyone has their own opinions and the organization's name doesn't automatically make their opinion 'right').

 

[opus]

-SS
I am glad that I am an INDEPENDENT. As a scientist myself, I am glad that I haven't fallen for the liberal pitfall like so many of the other scientists out there who claim that they are "open minded" when in reality the only way they look at things is from a skewed liberal perspective. I am also glad and will not be afraid at all to go against the grain of 90% of the people on this board who are pretty much liberal, even if it pisses off the liberal mods.

First of all, there is no such thing as an "independent" political stance. That is clearly loaded language reminiscent of a "scientist" like yourself believing in "objectivity". It is about as clear as Fox claiming to be "fair and balanced".

I also can not stand the Rep. stance on those issues. There really doesn't exist a "true" independent, but rather people who lie slightly to the left or slightly to the right. I will admit that I am oh so slightly to the left. But I CAN'T STAND all the liberal crap I hear from a lot of scientists at work, in industry, and during my undergrad education.

You lean "slightly" to the left yet here you are lambasting against these "liberals". This is weaseled language and reminiscent of the "I can't be racist, because I'm black".

For those of you claiming that the ACLU is "liberal":
Liberals don't do this.
The ACLU is nothing but an interest group with a specific jurisprudence in interpreting the constitution. Law is not liberal, it is not conservative - law is not political! However, some of you without legal knowledge (this is a physics forum, after all) definitely show huge ignorance by making these grand uneducated claims.

There is no "liberal agenda". America is a neoliberal country that has been run by conservative interests since WWII. It is about big businesses, individualistic ideology, and capitalist markets. To cry about these "communists/socialists/liberals" is akin to supporting the status quo. It is akin to screaming at your dead uncle's funeral. This is a country that has outlawed same-sex marriage in a large number of states, yet you continue to whine about a so-called liberal agenda? Give me a break. Let the political scientists deal with the political.

 

[gravenewworld]

First of all, there is no such thing as an "independent" political stance. That is clearly loaded language reminiscent of a "scientist" like yourself believing in "objectivity". It is about as clear as Fox claiming to be "fair and balanced".

You lean "slightly" to the left yet here you are lambasting against these "liberals". This is weaseled language and reminiscent of the "I can't be racist, because I'm black".

For those of you claiming that the ACLU is "liberal":
Liberals don't do this.
The ACLU is nothing but an interest group with a specific jurisprudence in interpreting the constitution. Law is not liberal, it is not conservative - law is not political! However, some of you without legal knowledge (this is a physics forum, after all) definitely show huge ignorance by making these grand uneducated claims.

There is no "liberal agenda". America is a neoliberal country that has been run by conservative interests since WWII. It is about big businesses, individualistic ideology, and capitalist markets. To cry about these "communists/socialists/liberals" is akin to supporting the status quo. It is akin to screaming at your dead uncle's funeral. This is a country that has outlawed same-sex marriage in a large number of states, yet you continue to whine about a so-called liberal agenda? Give me a break. Let the political scientists deal with the political.

No such thing as an independent stance? This is clearly loaded language reminiscent of a "lawyer" like yourself believing in "justice". It is about as clear as the corporate lawyer who claims they are doing the right thing by defending entities like big tobacco.


Leaning "slightly to the left" is not the same as the far leaning left wing liberal we were originally referring to. So what would you call it then when I would agree with conservatives on things like immigration while agreeing somewhat with someone on the left with something like universal health care? There does exist a GRAY area.



Law not political?

Do you really believe that? I bet someone like Rosa Parks would beg to differ.


The ACLU is nothing more than an organization of extremely liberal thinkers bent on using the law to promote their liberal ideology.



No liberal agenda? So liberals have no goals? ANY person that is a political scientist (who are the people we should leave politics to according to you) has a goal. This is a country where things like saying "under God" in our own pledge of allegiance, the 2nd amendment, and any notion of morality are constantly being attacked by the liberal agenda. No liberal agenda? Give me a break.

 

[russ_watters]

Law is not liberal, it is not conservative - law is not political!

That is a very odd statement.

 

[opus]

No such thing as an independent stance? This is clearly loaded language reminiscent of a "lawyer" like yourself believing in "justice". It is about as clear as the corporate lawyer who claims they are doing the right thing by defending entities like big tobacco.

Wrong, because lawyers are legal practitioners. Lawyers do not make up "laws" to "protect" big business. These laws are in place by politicians - so if you have problems with big tobacco, you don't lobby the bar association, you talk to your political representative.

Leaning "slightly to the left" is not the same as the far leaning left wing liberal we were originally referring to. So what would you call it then when I would agree with conservatives on things like immigration while agreeing somewhat with someone on the left with something like universal health care? There does exist a GRAY area.

Ideology is not an issue. Issues are issues. People can be conservative on certain issues, liberal in others. But to mix and match doesn't make someone an "independent". "Moderate" is a legitimate political stance. These political ideologies are orientations that have been historically grounded. Why do you think the left is so horrible at policy formulations? Liberalism is traditionally full of gray areas, and it is why excessive in-fighting and internal disagreements weaken the "left" in general. In the US, that is particularly visible with the Democrats. You have Black Democrats that for all intents and purposes, are extremely socially conservative but mostly economically liberal. It is generally the conservative right with a much more black/white worldview that is less tolerant of ambiguity, which makes the very idea attractive - simplify the world for simple solutions. This conservative way of thinking has been shown in numerous studies. The latest was published in Nature Neuroscience.

Law not political?

Do you really believe that? I bet someone like Rosa Parks would beg to differ.

Here is an article to skim over dealing with politics and law dealt in Latin America. Lawyers, as I repeat, are legal practitioners. They are not politicians. Politicians are the ones that make the law. The Supreme Court justices are not the one to blame when Bush does unconstitutional things. This however, has been captured and exploited by the conservatives in America by "picking" judges that "interpret" the law a "certain way", i.e. a "conservative judge". It is completely against the idea of Lady Justice and the law being "blind". Judges pick the best answer, not the "right" answer. Rosa Parks was arrested. She committed a crime. What she did was start a movement that changed American (civil rights movement) and had an unconstitutional law removed (segregation). The law was not changed because it morally "wrong", it was changed because it was "inconsistent" with the constitution. This is similar to same-sex marriage in Canada; the constitution in Canada forbids discrimination on sexual orientation.

The ACLU is nothing more than an organization of extremely liberal thinkers bent on using the law to promote their liberal ideology.

Which is why they are defending Westboro Church? Your groundless accusations are pathetic.

No liberal agenda? So liberals have no goals? ANY person that is a political scientist (who are the people we should leave politics to according to you) has a goal. This is a country where things like saying "under God" in our own pledge of allegiance, the 2nd amendment, and any notion of morality are constantly being attacked by the liberal agenda. No liberal agenda? Give me a break.

Political scientists are scientists, they study "what is", not "what ought to be". Your grand liberal conspiracy theory is a joke, and while it may resonate with your fellow conservatives on this board, it fools no one that has a sense of rationality. "Activist judges"? Give me a break.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You waved your hands and said "Look over here!"

Don't paraphrase what I said.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But that's besides the point. *I* do not have the authority to say what is and isn't Constitutional and neither does the ACLU.

You are correct, only the courts can do that. But you do have the right to be heard in court and so does the ACLU. I appreciate your plain speaking on your differences with them.