100,000 back bill to curb ACLU

[pnewton]

Penny Plain:

When they bring a certain type of case against the government (federal, state, or local) and win, then they are able to get their attorney fees back from the government they defeated.

Stopping this practice is what the bill being discussed is trying to stop. Unless it is the ACLU dierctly that has the wrong perpetrated upon it, they should not get a penny.

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

Mike,
I am very familiar with the letter that effectively coined the phrase “separation of church and state” but I am surprised you bring it up. It does not support your point at all. Jefferson was merely trying to calm the fears of a specific group that he was not going to establish himself as the head of a religion “I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church.” He even mentions the original intent of preventing the blocking of the free expression of religion "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

But nothing does prohibit the free exercise of religion. Putting symbols of religion in public places however implies that the state favours one religion over another, as in England, precisely the situation the founders were trying to avoid.

You always make this argument and it is irrelevent.

Always? I didn’t know we’d been arguing about it all that much.

It is not my personal rights but those of the people who erected the various things that are being attacked whos rights are being denied and it is setting a precedent for anyone’s (including mine) to be denied in the future. Since when is it improper to be concerned with more than our own personal situation? This country was founded on concern for the rights of all, not “me, me, me”.

It isn’t ‘people’ though. It is people acting in their role as representatives of the state. There is a massive difference.

It is doing no such thing. If it is then we should definitely close the government sanctioned and publicly funded “U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum” on the grounds that it favors Jewish suffering over others.

I’m not altogether sure that such a thing should be publically funded - but anyway this is a different question. You can choose whether or not to visit that museum. You can’t choose to the same extent whether you visit the public school, the courthouse, or the park.

Another irrelevant argument. The presence of the “Ten Commandments” or a Cross does not turn any place into a place of worship.

No - but you cannot deny that it signifies something specific.

It is merely the wish of the people who erected the monument to freely express their religion. A right that is supposed to be protected by the Constitution.

And is, to the extent of ‘the people’. Not ‘the people in the role of the government’.

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

Some ACLU history:

Most Americans are not even aware of the ACLU’s radical leftist birth and its dedication to following a communist-socialist agenda for the past 85 years. The ACLU was created at a unique gathering held in 1919 by an activist socialist named Roger Baldwin. Others of socialist-communist leaning assisted him with (name removed by moderator)ut at this assembly. Some participating were Elizabeth Gurley, later to become the head of the Communist Party, USA. Also at the event were the Soviet intelligence agent Agnes Smedley and Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas.

From the beginning, Roger Baldwin instructed those involved in the ACLU movement to make sure it always looked like a very patriotic organization. He instructed them to…”Steer away from making it look like a socialist enterprise. We want to look like patriots in every thing we do. We want to get a lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make the country and show that we are really folks that stand by the spirit of our institutions.”

The organization then went on the attack and started its legacy of defending abortionists, pornographers, child molesters (like the North American Man/Boy Love Association), and attempting to dismantle the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage.

By 1931 the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated" “The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists …” The committee also reported …”since its beginnings, the ACLU has waged war against Christianity…”

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Penny_Plain]

pnewton:

Stopping this practice is what the bill being discussed is trying to stop. Unless it is the ACLU dierctly that has the wrong perpetrated upon it, they should not get a penny.

Really?

Suppose I am fired from my job because I am Catholic. I can sue my employer and, if I win (I think) the law requires my employer to pay my attorney. I mean, that seems fair, doesn’t it? You just don’t like the ACLU, so you’d trash that whole provision just to get back at them?

You might want to sieve the bathwater first, is all I’m saying.

The ACLU gets paid when it wins. If it didn’t win, it wouldn’t get paid. How is it than an organization that brings all these meritless suits somehow manages to win enough cases that you guys have to pass a law to keep it from getting any money? I mean, you’d think that it would just lose all these nonsense lawsuits, dry up, and blow away.

Wait. Let me see if I can get it.

The courts are … also corrupt. All the judges are appointed by Democrats (in the last 33 years, you’ve had Democratic presidents for 12 years), juries are stupid, and the Smoke of Satan has entered your judiciary.

Or maybe the ACLU wins and reclaims attorney fees because it is occasionally … right?

Nah.

 

[pnewton]

MikeWM:

Putting symbols of religion in public places however implies that the state favours one religion over another, It isn’t ‘people’ though.

It is people acting in their role as representatives of the state. There is a massive difference.

You want a “massive difference?” How about the quantum difference between “implying” the state favors one religion and the US Constitution’s termilogy, i.e. “establishing” a religion.

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities

Now there’s an organization you can trust to protect your civil liberties.

Heck, let’s leave civil liberties to the government. We can trust it, right? Our government would never do anything to harm us. At least, it didn’t in my native country. Unless you were black, or something. Or Indian. Or thought that maybe the blacks and Indians had some sort of point.

As I understand the American constitution, you guys don’t really trust the government to protect your civil liberties. I always thought this was very wise of your founders. Why are you now in such a hurry to give up this heritage?

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

But nothing does prohibit the free exercise of religion. Putting symbols of religion in public places however implies that the state favours one religion over another, as in England, precisely the situation the founders were trying to avoid

Mike

You can not seriously believe that placing a cross at a memorial or displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is the same thing as setting up one religion run by the government and headed by the top government official. We are not talking about the government picking Christianity or one particular Christian denomination as the official religion and making George W. Bush the head of the church. THAT would be the same thing.

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

You can not seriously believe that placing a cross at a memorial or displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is the same thing as setting up one religion run by the government and headed by the top government official.

You’d have no problem with, say, putting a crescent moon on top of your courthouse or requiring witnesses to swear an oath on a copy of the Eightfold Path?

 

[2shelbys]

Penny Plain:

Now there’s an organization you can trust to protect your civil liberties.QUOTE]

You mean the U.S. House of Representatives? I certainly trust them more than I would trust the ACLU.

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

You mean the U.S. House of Representatives? I certainly trust them more than I would trust the ACLU.

Ooo-kaaaaayy.

Nobody make any sudden movements.

I would point out (although in a calm and rational manner and from a safe distance) that the ACLU doesn’t actually make any decisions that affect your civil liberties.

What it does is to help bring those matters before your federal courts so they can decide.

Federal judges who are nominated by your president and confirmed by your senate.

If you trust your legislators to protect your civil rights, surely you must trust the judges they’ve confirmed, right?

HEY! WHAT’S THAT BEHIND YOU?

(sound of running footsteps, slamming door)

 

[2shelbys]

Penny Plain:

You’d have no problem with, say, putting a crescent moon on top of your courthouse or requiring witnesses to swear an oath on a copy of the Eightfold Path?

Your arguments are irrelevent. If that was what our country and it’s legal system was founded on I would have no problem with it at all. If I moved to Israel I certainly would not have a problem with seeing the Star of David on display anywhere and everywhere. I do have a problem with the attempt to destroy traditional America and everything that made this country great.

 

[2shelbys]

Penny Plain:

Ooo-kaaaaayy.

Nobody make any sudden movements.

I would point out (although in a calm and rational manner and from a safe distance) that the ACLU doesn’t actually make any decisions that affect your civil liberties.

What it does is to help bring those matters before your federal courts so they can decide.

Federal judges who are nominated by your president and confirmed by your senate.

If you trust your legislators to protect your civil rights, surely you must trust the judges they’ve confirmed, right?

HEY! WHAT’S THAT BEHIND YOU?

(sound of running footsteps, slamming door)

And this is exactly why the Democrats have recently resorted to un-Constitutional means like judicial filibusters to prevent losing the leftist bias in the courts that has brought about all of this forced social change. They know that the leftist agenda is a loser at the ballot box every time and that the courts are their only chance to enact their agenga.

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

If that was what our country and it’s legal system was founded on I would have no problem with it at all.

Now we come to it.

You should have Christian symbols on your public buildings because you’re a Christian country and your legal system is based on Christianity. But Christianity is not an “established” religion.

Help a poor immigrant figure this one out.

 

[2shelbys]

Penny Plain:

Now we come to it.

You should have Christian symbols on your public buildings because you’re a Christian country and your legal system is based on Christianity. But Christianity is not an “established” religion.

Help a poor immigrant figure this one out.

The Ten Commandments are hardly a “Christian-only” symbol. It is not hard to understand if you try.

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

And this is exactly why the Democrats have recently resorted to un-Constitutional means like judicial filibusters to prevent losing the leftist bias in the courts that has brought about all of this forced social change. They know that the leftist agenda is a loser at the ballot box every time and that the courts are their only chance to enact their agenga.

Hmm…

Now I don’t vote in American elections. But I do follow them because they are so danged funny.

You’ve had Republican presidents from 1968-76, 1980-92, and 2000-05. Surely some of those presidents have appointed judges, yes? But the Democrats have “recently” resorted to the filibuster?

Where did the “leftist bias” come from in the courts? Republicans? Mars?

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

The Ten Commandments are hardly a “Christian-only” symbol. It is not hard to understand if you try.

Right. They’re a “Judeo-Christian” symbol. I’ve never met any “Judeo-Christians,” have you?

For that matter, if they’re a “Judeo-Christian” symbol, maybe you and Spiritblows need to get together and figure out why a “Jewish” organization like the ACLU is getting so worked up about the matter.

I’ll check back later and see how you’re doing with that one.

In the meantime, would you explain one other thing for me? I never got this one, either, because I thought US law was based on British law. Apparently I am mistaken, which wouldn’t be the first time.

Explain to a poor, silly immigrant how a document that reads “I am the Lord, thy God. You shall not have other gods before Me.” does not establish a religion?

 

[2shelbys]

Penny Plain:

Hmm…

Now I don’t vote in American elections. But I do follow them because they are so danged funny.

You’ve had Republican presidents from 1968-76, 1980-92, and 2000-05. Surely some of those presidents have appointed judges, yes? But the Democrats have “recently” resorted to the filibuster?

Where did the “leftist bias” come from in the courts? Republicans? Mars?

So 25 years out of 60 or so is an even split? And yes, the filibuster of judicial nominees has never occurred before. There are seven situations where the filibuster is allowed and confirmation of judicial nominees is not one of them.

 

[2shelbys]

Right. They’re a “Judeo-Christian” symbol. I’ve never met any “Judeo-Christians,” have you?

??? What is that supposed to mean? Now you are just getting silly.

For that matter, if they’re a “Judeo-Christian” symbol, maybe you and Spiritblows need to get together and figure out why a “Jewish” organization like the ACLU is getting so worked up about the matter.

I was not aware that they are a “Jewish” organization. I see them as a socialist/communist and Anti-American organization.

In the meantime, would you explain one other thing for me? I never got this one, either, because I thought US law was based on British law. Apparently I am mistaken, which wouldn’t be the first time

.

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

Explain to a poor, silly immigrant how a document that reads “I am the Lord, thy God. You shall not have other gods before Me.” does not establish a religion.

Your arguments are just silly. So which religion do you feel is the only one that recognizes a “God”? Mentioning God does not necessarily mean Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or anything else.

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

So 25 years out of 60 or so is an even split?

Lord. How long do your judges live? Or do you appoint them at the age of 18 or something?

My understanding of the filibuster is that it’s not in your Constitution at all. It’s a procedural rule of the Senate, which is allowed to make its own rules. Is it your position that one can use the filibuster to oppose integration laws (see Thurmond, Strom) but not to oppose judicial nominations?

That doesn’t seem right. If I am ever elected to your senate, I promise to investigate the matter immediately.

Also, I will do math for you to look into the ‘25 out of the last 60 years’ business.

Democratic presidents: 1945-52. 1960-68. 1976-80. 1992-2000.
Republican presidents: 1952-60. 1968-76. 1980-1992. 2000-05

I make that 27 years of Democrats and 33 years of Republicans. Seems pretty even to me, even though the liberal agenda is intellectually bankrupt and nobody could have ever fallen for it, so how’d that happen, eh?

However, I can’t imagine there are still a lot of judges appointed before 1969 still on the bench. Can you?

 

[Penny_Plain]

2shelbys:

I was not aware that they are a “Jewish” organization. I see them as a socialist/communist and Anti-American organization.

I wasn’t either, but if Spiritblows says it, it must be true. Why don’t you guys get together and confer, then get back to me?

2shelbys:

So which religion do you feel is the only one that recognizes a “God”? Mentioning God does not necessarily mean Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or anything else.

No, of course not. How silly of me to misunderstand.

I should have thought back to the OT. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai and found the Israelites worshipping the golden calf, I remember distinctly the part where he looked at the tablets and said, “Well, they say ‘God,’ but they don’t say which god. So this is fine.”

When you stand before the Throne, 2Shelbys, is it your plan to tell Almighty God, “Yes, I worshipped a box of Mrs. Paul’s fish fillets, but that’s okay because the Big 10 don’t say which god?”

I wish you luck. I would send Thomas More a big retainer now, though, just to be safe.