Congress asked to probe ACLU

[Penny_Plain]

Jay74:

They receive a great deal of federal, state, and local tax dollars.

Did you read the article? Here’s what it said.

CourtZero.org, a website dedicated to stemming judicial activism, is petitioning Congress to change 42 U.S.C., Section 1988, of the United States Code that permits judges to award attorney fees to plaintiffs in civil-rights cases brought against local governments, thereby putting the taxpayers on the hook and oftentimes funneling public money to the ACLU. Simply changing the law so the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment would not apply could deprive the ACLU of millions of taxpayer dollars. For instance, when the ACLU takes a city to court claiming a Christmas display violates the Establishment Clause, if the municipality loses, the city’s taxpayers are often forced to pay ACLU attorneys.

In other words, the ACLU recovers attorney fees from governments when it wins.

 

[Penny_Plain]

KathleenElsie:

The time has come for them to become free of the GOVERNMENT DOLE.

It seems to me that the easiest way to do that would be for the government to get with the programme in the matter of civil liberties. No wins = no attorney fees.

 

[Jay74]

Penny Plain:

Did you read the article? Here’s what it said.

In other words, the ACLU recovers attorney fees from governments when it wins.

Of course I read the article. Have you read how the ACLU makes its fortune off frivilous lawsuits under the guise of civil liberties?

Have you read how the ACLU persecutes the Boy Scouts while defending the pedophiles at NABLA? How is that defending civil liberties?

Most of the ACLU’s lawsuits have nothing to do with government functioning in a constitutional manner and everying to do with an agenda. The ACLU its is unconstitutional, and I read about them a lot.

 

[Franze]

Does ACLU receive federal subventions? It´s sad, very sad.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Jay74:

Of course I read the article. Have you read how the ACLU makes its fortune off frivilous lawsuits under the guise of civil liberties?

Have you read how the ACLU persecutes the Boy Scouts while defending the pedophiles at NABLA? How is that defending civil liberties?

Most of the ACLU’s lawsuits have nothing to do with government functioning in a constitutional manner and everying to do with an agenda. The ACLU its is unconstitutional, and I read about them a lot.

Then the next step would be to understand the article.

I don’t understand how the ACLU can recover “millions” in attorney fees if all the lawsuits it files are “frivolous.” I mean, if they were friviolous, they’d never win, and you have to win to recover attorney fees, right?

So how do they win all these lawsuits?

Wait … don’t tell me. Corrupt LIBERAL judges, right?

Hmm… Why is it that the only people who really understand your constitution spend all day posting on the internet? I mean, shouldn’t you be in law school or something?

 

[Della]

Penny Plain:

Then the next step would be to understand the article.

I don’t understand how the ACLU can recover “millions” in attorney fees if all the lawsuits it files are “frivolous.” I mean, if they were friviolous, they’d never win, and you have to win to recover attorney fees, right?

So how do they win all these lawsuits?

Wait … don’t tell me. Corrupt LIBERAL judges, right?

Hmm… Why is it that the only people who really understand your constitution spend all day posting on the internet? I mean, shouldn’t you be in law school or something?

Oh, this contributed substantially to the discussion at hand.

Self-confessed troll–says a lot.

Nothing to see here people, just ignore and move along if you don’t want to waste your time and efforts.

 

[Jay74]

Penny Plain:

Wait … don’t tell me. Corrupt LIBERAL judges, right?

There is nothing corrupt about holding liberal views, or conservative views. What is corrupt is for a judge to substitute their will for the rule of law.

Liberal example: Legalizing gay marriage, infringing the right of the Boy Scouts to assemble on public property, ruling government can take private property and give to another private party, etc.

Conservative example: Hard to think of times too many conservative ideologues have made laws from the bench (then again, Reagan appointees helped kill Terri Schiavo), but I can think of a hypothetical . If a judge were against abortion, and a lawsuit was filed by a man seeking to stop a woman from aborting his child, the judge would have to allow the abortion even though he didn’t agree with it. Why? Because judges interpret law, not writes law.

A judges personal view is his business. His legal conduct is the publics business. If he chooses to write laws instead of interpret them, then he is corrupt. Most of these judges, sadly, are from the political left. They agree with the ACLU-agenda, so they accept their case, and implement it with their gavel.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Jay74:

If he chooses to write laws instead of interpret them, then he is corrupt. Most of these judges, sadly, are from the political left. They agree with the ACLU-agenda, so they accept their case, and implement it with their gavel.

But … but … but seven of your nine Supreme Court Justices (counting Justice O’Connor) were appointed by presidents from your Republic Party, right? I don’t get it.

 

[Zooey]

IT’S ABOUT TIME!!!
This organization is about as anti-Christian as an organization can possibly be. They have an agenda that is anti everything our nation stands for…