ACLU--The American Taliban

[c1986goose]

For MrDave.....

An excerpt from Joseph Farah's book, "Taking America Back".


The ACLU needs to be exposed for what it is. It is not an organization devoted to civil rights. It is not a group promoting and protecting the First Amendment. Rather, it is an organization systematically abusing the free exercise of religion, cheapening the Constitution and harassing and intimidating with a Taliban-like fury ordinary Americans simply exercising their civil rights.

It's a hate group. It always has been, since the day it was founded by Soviet-loving socialist radicals like Roger Baldwin. In those early days, Baldwin advised, "Do steer away from making it [the ACLU] 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 of the country and show we are really the folks that stand by the spirit of our institutions."

Our forefathers would be appalled at the work of the ACLU.

[tommy]

i dont support the aclu goose and neither does anyone i know :smile9: and its my opinion that no one should support them :yesyes:

[RainGypsy]

I do not agree. A lot of conservatives and/or republicans support the ACLU. Although they may not agree with or embrace all the ACLU does as far as gay rights, gun control, abortion, etc, they are worried about things like the Patriot Act which infringes on what the forefathers wanted for us, freedom and liberty.

[MrDave]

For MrDave.....

An excerpt from Joseph Farah's book, "Taking America Back".


The ACLU needs to be exposed for what it is. It is not an organization devoted to civil rights. It is not a group promoting and protecting the First Amendment. Rather, it is an organization systematically abusing the free exercise of religion, cheapening the Constitution and harassing and intimidating with a Taliban-like fury ordinary Americans simply exercising their civil rights.

It's a hate group. It always has been, since the day it was founded by Soviet-loving socialist radicals like Roger Baldwin. In those early days, Baldwin advised, "Do steer away from making it [the ACLU] 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 of the country and show we are really the folks that stand by the spirit of our institutions."

Our forefathers would be appalled at the work of the ACLU.

Our forefathers wrote the constitution and the Bill of Rights. What organization do you see that is actively defending them?

The ACLU defends religions organizations. If you were to look for yourself you might have known this but I will help you:

In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142

Following ACLU Lawsuit, Town Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit to Pittsburgh Area Church
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15507&c=29

ACLU Files Religious Liberty Lawsuit on Behalf of Native American Who Refuses to Cut Hair
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15399&c=29

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29

ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141

EDIT: Restraining myself here: - you should really put in a little more effort before you post.

[dandylin]

Great Links Mr Dave thanks

[LastLaugh]

Farah anti- ACLU no suprise there.
"Farah went on to cite the usual suspects -- Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, Janeane Garofolo, Sean Penn -- and then demanded: "It's time to silence these people. It's time to force them to get real jobs and perform real work and learn the unusual and undeserved blessings America has bestowed upon them." Like the First Amendment right of free speech, perhaps?"

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/outthere/otfarah.html

Roger Baldwin was a visionary. We need more like him.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin_r.html

[dandylin]

That Farah guy reminds me alot of the Michael Savage, only not quite as blatantly racist

[dandylin]

Until people like Rush Limbaugh need them?

[pechuna]

Which organization is more useless, the ACLU or the UN? However, thanks to the ACLU, there is no prayer is schools. For those children that are unfortunate and have no role models at home, it may be the only exposure they have to a higher being. I don't see why all religions couldn't be featured. As children would know about other religions, that should promote tolerance.

[dandylin]

Why do conservatives have such a hard time accepting the ACLU as a vital organization, one that is non-partisan, never endorses candidates and that accepts cases from anyone who's civil rights have been violated.

It makes no sense.

[dandylin]

Which organization is more useless, the ACLU or the UN? However, thanks to the ACLU, there is no prayer is schools. For those children that are unfortunate and have no role models at home, it may be the only exposure they have to a higher being. I don't see why all religions couldn't be featured. As children would know about other religions, that should promote tolerance.


You stated exactly why prayer was taken out of school. It's my right as a parent to expose my children to what I choose. Prayer in school, amounted to the "state" promoting religion. Pray at home with your kids, if you so choose, don't force it down anyone else's kids throats. It's not the school's job to "save" my children

[tommy]

Which organization is more useless, the ACLU or the UN? However, thanks to the ACLU, there is no prayer is schools. For those children that are unfortunate and have no role models at home, it may be the only exposure they have to a higher being. I don't see why all religions couldn't be featured. As children would know about other religions, that should promote tolerance.

===================================================

thats a togh ? lad but sometimes i think the un is as useless as the aclu but i really feel the aclu is the most useless organization in the world :yesyes:

[MrDave]

My post stated what I wanted it to say, especially the second paragraph.

I am not as organized as all you ACLU guys who have all the posts at hand to try and persuade people to be sympathetic towards the ACLU.

When I post it is short and sweet, to the point. ACLU is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Tries to put on a patriotic face while stabbing you in the back.

You are not as organized nor do you sound as educated. There are other sources of information out there that you can look to and educate yourself and perhaps provide some defence of your views or even speak your own mind instead of "only resaying what you have heard".

If you want to provide some examples of the ACLU being a Wolf is Sheeps clothing that would be cool.

I think it is interesting the one-liners seem to come from the right-wing and the thoughtful replies tend to come from the left wing. I guess that makes these debates too easy for me. :nana:

[LastLaugh]

pechuna, why don't you stand on street corners outside your local schools and preach the gospel or maybe go door to door with Jack Chick tracts.

[hort1]

However, thanks to the ACLU, there is no prayer is schools. .

I'm disappointed you put the blame for this squarely on the back of the ACLU. I believe Herr Clinton and his satan-queen Hillary are no less responsible. Obviously the liberal media has covered this up....

[Mary Beth]

Hey, goose, what is it about the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights that you don't like?

Pecuna, you should talk to my DH, who was raised in a non-religious household, but was forced to read from the bible in 4th grade. His mother offered to take the issue to the Supreme Court, but he was 9 and didn't want to make waves. There's a reason that the state isn't supposed to sponsor religion.

Mary Beth (card-carrying member of the ACLU and proud of it)

[hort1]

ACLU is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Tries to put on a patriotic face while stabbing you in the back.

Haven't you written, in connection with military service and veterans, that one of the things that those in the military fight for is the freedoms we are guaranteed as citizens? If you truly value the preservation of those freedoms, then why wouldn't you support - or at least temper your hatred of - the ACLU? If someone says they are willing to die to protect another person's freedom of speech, why would they oppose an organization that works to protect that same freedom of speech?

[Txsweeper]

My problem with the ACLU, as an organization, is that they pick their causes. Their cases are normally only those that will get public attention. And sometimes their causes aren't for the good of everyone involved, such as woman should be drafted right along with men and employers shouldn't be able to conduct drug testing.

I think if you're going to be a "lawyer" for the people, then be there for everyone, not just those that undermind establishments that they have a beef with.

[dandylin]

My problem with the ACLU, as an organization, is that they pick their causes. Their cases are normally only those that will get public attention. And sometimes their causes aren't for the good of everyone involved, such as woman should be drafted right along with men and employers shouldn't be able to conduct drug testing.

I think if you're going to be a "lawyer" for the people, then be there for everyone, not just those that undermind establishments that they have a beef with.


The cases get public attention because of the ACLU, they don't take them after they get attention, they are the reason they get attention.

Their causes fall under civil liberties. And drug testing and women being drafted fall into category.

It's about Civil Liberties, when their lawyers feel that someone's liberties have been infringed upon, they take the case. Popular or not.

I am ever so grateful that they exist.

[Txsweeper]

The cases get public attention because of the ACLU, they don't take them after they get attention, they are the reason they get attention.

Their causes fall under civil liberties. And drug testing and women being drafted fall into category.

It's about Civil Liberties, when their lawyers feel that someone's liberties have been infringed upon, they take the case. Popular or not.

I am ever so grateful that they exist.
Yes, but they won't take a case unless it WILL get public attention. Joe Blow, who's civil liberties are infringed won't get the backing of the ACLU if it's not an attention getting case. They're only going to represent your cause if they can generate the public's attention.

And employer drug testing is not about your civil liberties. Employers have every right to establish rules for their business associates, so unless they make you walk in front of their store naked as a jay-bird, their not hurting your rights. Drug testing in jobs/schools etc. is the best thing to happen to America since the invention of pita bread! You wanna do drugs, stay home and do them, don't threaten my safety with your kicks.

[pechuna]

Better yet Auto, why don't the heathens home school their kids?

[MrDave]

My problem with the ACLU, as an organization, is that they pick their causes. Their cases are normally only those that will get public attention. And sometimes their causes aren't for the good of everyone involved, such as woman should be drafted right along with men and employers shouldn't be able to conduct drug testing.

I think if you're going to be a "lawyer" for the people, then be there for everyone, not just those that undermind establishments that they have a beef with.

I would just like to add that when I volunteered at the Colorado ACLU the cases they took on were largely not very public cases. Stuff like job discrimination, people having their money confiscated at the airport because a drug dog smelled cocaine on them, and other more mundane stuff. The ones you hear about in the media are generally hot spots that the media feels the public are interested in - could be dramatic cases like gay marriage or the separation of church and state actions.

The only time I was disappointed was when they didn't take a case from a white male who was discriminated against by a Hispanic boss. This decision was made by the secretary who made the call so it is hard to condemn the ACLU for her actions. I took calls over the phone as well and there were quite a few coming in. I think it is great that people have a resource like this to turn to when they are treated unfairly (within the scope of the ACLU at least).

The ACLU fields calls from the public and reviews the cases to see if they can help or if they appear to be a constitutional or civil rights issues, so a lot of their work is done in support of people coming to them for help. They don't just scan the news and look for a hot issue to jump in on.

I think they deserve a lot more respect than what they get. There are some great books about the history of the ACLU that really put their work into perspective. I am about to go back and read one that I had read in college. I'm not saying they don't focus in certain areas at certain times, and I'm not saying that historically they have been managed in ways that us card carrying members would approve of, but overall all Americans are better off because of some of the landmark decisions they contributed to and because of the work they do day to day around the country.

If you love your freedom and civil liberties I recommend looking into what they do or other organizations like them. We, as the people of the United States give our government certain powers, and it only makes sense that when they have power over us we should also support organizations that insure the government is acting responsibly with that power and conform to the democratic principles of our county.

PS - since Bush landed in office their membership numbers have gone up significantly.

[pechuna]

I agree Hort, Herr Clinton and his Fraulein were certainly an impediment to school prayer.

Bill Clinton was such a hypocrite as he directed so many people to pray in the oval office. At least they were on their knees. :laugh:

[Txsweeper]

Let me ask this: I just saw a headline where the ACLU has pressured a city to remove a cross from their city logo. Let me tell you why I have a REAL problem with that.

How could the cross, the sign of death, be offensive to anyone?

But here's my real problem, I grew up in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Las Cruces, meaning the crosses. Our symbol is three crosses, which is proudly displayed on all city logos and which is also a monument on the corner of the main highway into town. Will the ACLU pressure Las Cruces to change it's name and remove it's crosses???? The crosses symbolize the death of American's traveling through by wagon train.

A cross is two lines which meet in the middle. What are they going to "pressure" next? :worry: :worry: I think it's a shame.

[sallykay]

Oh, for goodness sakes! The ACLU is a WONDERFUL organization, and although I support their goals, I'm not a card carrying member. If I was, I certainly wouldn't be a member of "the American Taliban".

There is some irony there--if not for organizations like the ACLU, the author who makes that claim might very well have been quashed by a REAL American Taliban.

In my undergrad, we did a re-creation of the supreme court case allowing the Japanese to be interred in WWII, a decision now universally recognized as being a wrong decision. However, in our mock case, once again the supremes found for the government, and the Japanese were once again interred.

That is only one reason why we need the ACLU.

[dandylin]

You only hear about the most controversial cases. There are thousands upon thousands that you don't.

I was advised to contact the ACLU by an attorney a few years ago. My son was in middle school at the time and there was a problem with one of the teachers, at about the same time my son broke his collar bone at school and no one would let him call me to come get him. They didn't believe he was hurt. But that is not what the case was about. It was illegal search. A few days earlier a teacher called my son out of a room, where his bookbag was. While he was gone another teacher searched his bag.

A few days after I found out about this and spoke with an attorney, I made an appointment with the Superintendent. He thought it was about the collar bone incident, so I blind-sided him with what it really was. The teachers were brought in and asked why his bag was searched. It wasn't for suspicion of drugs, it wasn't for stealing, it wasn't for any illegal activity. It was because he lied about his homework and they were looking for proof. I mentioned to the superindendent that I had legal counsel and that they had advised me to contact the ACLU but I wanted to give them a chance to clear this up on their own.

Guess what, it worked, I got an apology, my son got an apology and a district wide meeting was called where Civil Rights of students was discussed.

Those are the kinds of cases the ACLU takes too, you just don't hear about them on tv.

[hort1]

Let me ask this: I just saw a headline where the ACLU has pressured a city to remove a cross from their city logo. Let me tell you why I have a REAL problem with that.

How could the cross, the sign of death, be offensive to anyone?

But here's my real problem, I grew up in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Las Cruces, meaning the crosses. Our symbol is three crosses, which is proudly displayed on all city logos and which is also a monument on the corner of the main highway into town. Will the ACLU pressure Las Cruces to change it's name and remove it's crosses???? The crosses symbolize the death of American's traveling through by wagon train.

A cross is two lines which meet in the middle. What are they going to "pressure" next? :worry: :worry: I think it's a shame.

I think most people consider the cross to have religious meaning, and not as some sort of general death symbol. I think most cities have a specific purpose in mind when they insert a cross into a seal or logo. Do you remember the name of the city?

Also, Idon't believe that the ALCU can simply charge into court whenever they see an "issue." Someone has to actually have a complaint that can go forward in the form of a lawsuit. At that point the ACLU could represent them. They cannot take every complaint that comes in (nor could any other law firm); some issues are already settled; or a particular set of facts may not make a good case.
They also file "friend-of-court" briefs in cases where they are not actually representing anyone - this gets a lot of press. Lots of groups do that though.

[auntputz]

Better yet Auto, why don't the heathens home school their kids?
ummmmm that was a tad uncalled for!

[ccat45]

I for one am eternally grateful in this day and age of eroding civil liberties that the ACLU exists. They defend our civil liberties and believe that EVERYONE is entitled to them. Their defense of the American Nazi party's right to march in Skokie is an excellent example of their defense of an unpopular cause. I always think of this quote about Germany during the Hitler reign and am glad there is an ACLU to speak for me.
First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemoeller

[MrDave]

Let me ask this: I just saw a headline where the ACLU has pressured a city to remove a cross from their city logo. Let me tell you why I have a REAL problem with that.

How could the cross, the sign of death, be offensive to anyone?

But here's my real problem, I grew up in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Las Cruces, meaning the crosses. Our symbol is three crosses, which is proudly displayed on all city logos and which is also a monument on the corner of the main highway into town. Will the ACLU pressure Las Cruces to change it's name and remove it's crosses???? The crosses symbolize the death of American's traveling through by wagon train.

A cross is two lines which meet in the middle. What are they going to "pressure" next? :worry: :worry: I think it's a shame.

Txsweeper - I'm sorry to say this but you should have checked into this some more.

Noone disputed that this was a Christian cross. Here is a quote from two articles I read on this case:

Supporters urge city to save logo
http://www.pe.com/localnews/sanbernardino/stories/PE_News_Local_bcross28.101ba.html
"The faith in the Redlands community will not be diminished simply because we've been told to remove the cross," Redlands Mayor Susan Peppler said by phone Tuesday. "This (city) council feels very troubled by this whole situation, but, again, it's very clear that the law is not on our side. We cannot win this."

Cross removal protested
BAN: Officials will remove Christian symbol from a city logo at the insistence of the ACLU.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/sanbernardino/stories/PE_News_Local_bcross29.a2a70.html
"We were founded on things that happened because of this cross," he said Wednesday. "Our nation was founded on Christianity."

I have included a copy of the logo - it looks like it is even hovering above a Church.

[MrDave]

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemoeller

Great quote - I think it illustrates the principle very well. I'm sure noone in Germany thought their country would go so far before the war.

[oldroses]

Better yet Auto, why don't the heathens home school their kids?

ummmmm that was a tad uncalled for!

I agree auntputz.

Pechuna-
The same could be said for religous fanatics.

That's why this country was founded on the principle of the Separation of Church and State.

[Mary Beth]

Great quote - I think it illustrates the principle very well. I'm sure noone in Germany thought their country would go so far before the war.

It is a great one - probably my very favorite.

You're right, MrDave, about the Germans. I have a friend whose parents fled Germany before Hitler started murdering the Jews. The rest of the family thought they were being silly - they pointed out that they were good Germans and the family had lived there for many centuries. They were all killed by the Nazis.

[LastLaugh]

Better yet Auto, why don't the heathens home school their kids?
I think burning them at the stake would be a much more efficient way to handle the problem. Don't you agree?

[ravengoth]

pechuna,

Why do you continue to INSIST that everyone get religion? WHY do you want everyone to be like you? Would it enhance your beliefs if we all agreed? Does the fact that other people have other ideas frighten you? Have you ever read where Christ expressed such animosity against the Romans? "Love thine enemy...turn the other cheek...", are these words of rigid unacceptance? Didn't he rescue a prostitute from being stoned? Didn't the apostles come from many walks of life? How has "love thy neighbor" turned into "subjugate thy neighbor?"

[ravengoth]

As long as I am talking about bible stories...it seems to me that Christ himself eloquently explained the separation of church and state. Someone was trying to trick him into openly, publicly discrediting paying tribute to the Romans and he cleverly replied, "Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render onto God what is God's."

[RainGypsy]

Did we lose the right to pray in school? No. Can students pray publicly before a game or at lunch, in the halls, etc? Yes. Schools cant sponsor group prayer, but students can still pray! If God is missing from the schools it's because he's been lost in the hearts/home.

[hort1]

Oh, the good old days of Joe McCarthy and the John Birch Society.
-------------------------------------------
A member of the Republican Party and the John Birch Society, Rousselot was elected to the 87th Congress (1961-63). He unsuccessful candidate for re-election for the 88th Congress. He was relected in 1970 and held the seat for 13 years.

In 1975 Harry Dean claimed he had been an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1962 he infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that Rousselot and General Edwin Walker had hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy. However, Dean was unable to provide any evidence to back up his claim.

After being defeated in 1982 Ronald Reagan appointed him President of the National Council of Savings Institutions (1985-88).
--------------------------------------------

As Rousselot shows, any fool can enter anything they want into the Congressional Record.

[LastLaugh]

Anything can be read into the Congressional record, truthful or not.

[RainGypsy]

Thanks for the 40-70 year old information. I do not find it relevant to apply it to what the ACLU is currently doing. Examination of their current activities confirms that there is no communist agenda. Many of those who started the ACLU changed their views and/or are dead as a doorknob. What matters more to me is what they are doing *now* and if they are driven by principles or politics.

[MrDave]

Here is a nice summary of some of the ACLU's work towards women's rights in the US, something we take for granted now (focusing on the work of Ginsburg) - ooh - those evil communists letting women get a fair share - so deceptive.

Following is a list of the key cases that Judge Ginsburg worked on
while with the ACLU:

> Reed v. Reed (1971). Ginsburg authored the ACLU brief in a case
challenging an Idaho law that instructed probate judges to automatically
name male relatives as administrators of estates even when there were
equally qualified female relatives. This case became the first in which
the Supreme Court held a gender-based law unconstitutional under the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

> Frontiero v. Richardson (1973). Through special leave of the
Supreme Court, Ginsburg argued as a friend of the court the ACLU position
that the military could not provide automatic benefits to servicemen while
requiring women in the service to prove that they contributed the
overwhelming majority of the family's financial support to receive the
same benefits. The Supreme Court held that married women serving in the
military were entitled to the same benefits as men, but failed by one vote
to place sex-based discrimination on the same level of race-based
discrimination.

> In several cases involving Social Security benefits, Ginsburg
successfully challenged a series of laws that assumed that all families
were supported by men and accorded government benefits on that basis,
thereby discriminating against women workers who the ACLU argued were
entitled to benefits on the same basis for their families. These cases
included Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) and Califano v. Goldfarb (1977).

> In another series of cases, Ginsburg challenged various state laws
that effectively served to keep women off juries. In its decisions, the
Supreme Court ruled that a jury "of one's peers" must include women under
the Sixth Amendment's rights to a impartial jury. These cases included
Edwards v. Healy (1975), which was the companion case to Taylor v.
Louisiana, and Duren v. Missouri (1979).

> Craig v. Boren (1976). Ginsburg filed an influential ACLU
friend-of-the-court brief that led the Court to overturn an Oklahoma law
that treated men and women differently with respect to legal drinking
ages. In this case, the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision to
grant sex-based discrimination so-called "middle tier" or "heightened"
scrutiny for the first time, thereby placing it on a level close to -- but
not equal to -- race discrimination.

[sallykay]

In recent memory-1990s, a local school here would not allow a girl to be Valedictorian because of "tradition". Only boys could be Valedictorians. She contacted the ALCU, and got her due.

[MrDave]

Oh - I'll just throw in a few more that the ACLU was involved with:

1943 West Virginia v. Barnette
A groundbreaking decision, made more resonant by its issuance in wartime. The Court championed religious liberty with its holding that a state could not force Jehovah's Witness children to salute the American flag.

1944 Smith v. Allwright
An early civil rights victory that invalidated, under the Fifteenth Amendment, the intentional exclusion of African Americans from Texas' "white primary" on the ground that primaries are central to the electoral process even though the Democratic Party is a private organization.

1954 Brown v. Board of Education
In perhaps the most far-reaching decision of this century, the Court declared racially segregated schools unconstitutional and overruled the "separate but equal" doctrine announced in its infamous 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.

1957 Watkins v. United States
Under the First Amendment, the Court imposed limits on the investigative powers of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, which had found a labor leader in contempt for refusing to answer questions about his associates' membership in the Communist Party.

1964 New York Times v. Sullivan
A victory for freedom of the press. Public officials could not recover damages for defamation, ruled the Court, unless they could prove that a newspaper had impugned them with "actual malice." A city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, had sued over publication of a full-page ad written by civil rights activists.

1964 Reynolds v. Sims
An historic civil rights decision that applied the "one person, one vote" formula to state legislative districts, and that was regarded by Chief Justice Earl Warren to be the most important decision rendered during his tenure.

1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ever use a condom?
Among the 20th century's most influential decisions. It invalidated a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives on the ground that a right of "marital privacy," though not specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is protected by "several fundamental constitutional guarantees."

1966 Miranda v. Arizona
This famous decision established the "Miranda warnings," a requirement that the police, before interrogating suspects, must inform them of their rights. The Court embraced the ACLU's amicus argument that a suspect in custody has both a Sixth Amendment right to counsel and a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

1966 Bond v. Floyd
The Court ordered Georgia's legislature to seat the duly elected state senator, Julian Bond, a civil rights activist denied his seat for publicly supporting Vietnam War draft resisters. Criticizing U.S. foreign policy, said the Court, does not violate a legislator's oath to uphold the Constitution.

1967 Loving v. Virginia my wife and I thank them for this one
A civil rights landmark that invalidated the anti-miscegination laws of Virginia and 15 other southern states. The Court ruled that criminal bans on interracial marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and "the freedom to marry," which the Court called "one of the basic civil rights of man"(sic).

1969 Tinker v. Des Moines
A landmark lift for symbolic speech and students' rights. The Court invalidated the suspension of public school students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, writing that students did not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird
Extending Griswold, this decision overturned the conviction of a reproductive rights activist who had given an unmarried woman in Massachusetts a contraceptive device. The Court held that allowing distribution of contraceptives to married, but not unmarried, people violated the Equal Protection Clause.

1974 U.S. v. Nixon
This test of Presidential power involved Nixon's effort to withhold crucial Watergate tapes from Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. In the only amicus brief filed, the ACLU argued: "There is no proposition more dangerous to the health of a constitutional democracy than the notion that an elected head of state is above the law and beyond the reach of judicial review." The Court agreed and ordered the tapes handed over.

1975 O'Connor v. Donaldson
The Court's first ruling on the rights of mental patients supported a non-violent man who had been confined against his will in a state hospital for 15 years. Mental illness alone, said the Court, could not justify "simple custodial confinement" on an indefinite basis.

1978 In re Primus
An ACLU cooperating attorney -- a sharecropper's daughter and the first black woman to finish the University of South Carolina Law School -- was reprimanded for "improper solicitation" by the state supreme court after she encouraged some poor women to challenge the state's sterilization of welfare recipients. Exonerating her, the high Court distinguished between lawyers who solicit "for pecuniary gain"and those who solicit to "further political and ideological goals through associational activity."

1992 Hudson v. McMillian
The Court upheld a Louisiana prisoner's claim that three corrections officers had violated his Eighth Amendment right to be spared cruel and unusual punishment by beating him while he was shackled and handcuffed. The Court held that the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain is an appropriate standard in prisoners' Eighth Amendment cases.

1994 Ladue v. Gilleo
Unanimously, the Court struck down a Missouri town's ordinance that had barred a homeowner from posting a sign in her bedroom window that said, "Say No to War in the Gulf -- Call Congress Now!"

1997 Reno v. ACLU
The Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which censored the Internet by banning "indecent" speech. A major First Amendment victory for the information age.

[MrDave]

Oh - this is fun. Thanks for the thread Goose.

1938 Lovell v. Griffin The Court held, in this case involving Jehovah's
Witnesses, that a local ordinance in Georgia prohibiting the
distribution of "literature of any kind" without a City Manager's
permit, violated the First Amendment.

1939 Hague v. CIO An important First Amendment case in which the Court
recognized a broad freedom to assemble in public forums, such as
"streets and parks," by invalidating the repressive actions of Jersey
City's anti-union Mayor, "Boss" Hague.

1946 Hannegan v. Esquire A major blow against censorship. The Court
severely limited the Postmaster General's power to withhold mailing
privileges for allegedly "offensive" material.

1947 Everson v. Board of Education A trailblazer: The Court found school
boards' reimbursement of the public transportation costs incurred by
parents whose children attended parochial schools constitutional, but
Justice Black's statement -- "In the words of Jefferson, the
clause...was intended to erect a `wall of separation between church and
State'..." -- was the Court's first major utterance on the meaning of
Establishment Clause.

1948 Shelley v. Kraemer An important civil rights decision that
invalidated restrictive covenants -- contractual agreements between
white homeowners in a residential area barring the sale of houses to
black people.

1952 Burstyn v. Wilson Artistic freedom triumphed when the Court
overruled its 1915 holding that movies "are a business, pure and
simple," and decided that New York State's refusal to license "The
Miracle" violated the First Amendment. The state censor had labeled the
film "sacrilegious."

1958 Kent v. Dulles The Court ruled that the State Department had
exceeded its authority in denying artist Rockwell Kent a passport
because he refused to sign a "noncommunist affidavit." The right to
travel, said the Court, is protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.

1963 Gideon v. Wainwright An indigent drifter from Florida made history
when, in a handwritten petition, he persuaded the Court that poor people
had the right to a state-appointed lawyer in criminal cases.

1964 Escobedo v. Illinois Invoking the Sixth Amendment right to counsel,
the Court threw out the confession of a man whose repeated requests to
see his lawyer, throughout many hours of police interrogation, were
ignored.

1965 U.S. v. Seeger In one of the first anti-Vietnam War decisions, the
Court extended conscientious objector status to those who do not
necessarily believe in a supreme being, but who oppose war based on
sincere beliefs that are equivalent to religious faith.

1968 Levy v. Louisiana The Court invalidated a state law that denied an
illegitimate child the right to recover damages for a parent's death.
The ruling established the principle that the accidental circumstance of
a child's birth does not justify denials of rights.

1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird Extending Griswold, this decision overturned
the conviction of a reproductive rights activist who had given an
unmarried woman in Massachusetts a contraceptive device. The Court held
that allowing distribution of contraceptives to married, but not
unmarried, people violated the Equal Protection Clause.

1978 Smith v. Collin The peculiar facts of this, one of the ACLU's most
controversial First Amendment lawsuits ever, attracted enormous
attention: American Nazis wanted to march through a Chicago suburb,
Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The ACLU's challenge to
the village's ban on the march was ultimately upheld.

1990 Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health The Court's
first "right-to-die" case, in which the ACLU represented the family of a
woman who had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than seven
years. Although the Court did not go as far as the ACLU urged, it did
recognize living wills as clear and convincing evidence of a patient's
wishes.


In any event - these "Communists" created or supported rights for women, the right to use contraception, recognition of living wills, the right to free speech regardless of political bent, public assembly, interracial marriage, the rights of all races, one person one vote, "the right to remain silent", busting Nixon, our right to privacy and also blocked the governments attempts at censoring free speech.


The ACLU rules.

:nana:

[LastLaugh]

Makes interesting reading....

Yes, MrDave, I have an education. I do not flaunt it like others.

Long, but good.....

http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html
:laugh: :laugh: ROTFLMAO ......you're a funny man Mr. Goose.

[MrDave]

:laugh: :laugh: ROTFLMAO ......you're a funny man Mr. Goose.

Yeah - funny! Calling Junior High "an education". Good one! :laugh: