So many wacko ACLU subjects, so little time. I found their "article" from back on July 1st rather interesting, though, being all about the ACLU being concerned that O’Connor’s replacement might role back civil liberties. Just like all the other activist sites, they are having a hissy fit before a nominee is even suggested. It is so absurd as to be laughable. Except that these ACLU nuts and their activism and lawsuits can be dangerous, as they put the civil liberties of one group over another. At the time, the ACLU was going to hold a board meeting to see if they should oppose President Bush’s nominee. Gee, you think they will vote to oppose? My money would be on "yes," whenever GWB submits his nominee.
So what is the ACLU looking for in comparison to O’Connor’s record? They mention three cases, the first of which, Grutter v Bollinger, put O’Connor squarely on the side of affirmitive action, an issue that puts one groups set of civil liberties above another sets. My copy of the Declaration of Independence states that all Men are created equal, not that one group gets perks that another doesn’t.
The second case is Hamdi v Rumsfeld, in which O’Conner took the position that it was more important to give traitors to the USA, as Hamdi was caught on the field of battle in Afghanistan fighting for a terrorist organization, the rights and privelidges of the country he forsook. Hey, I’m up for that. Let’s try the sucker then hang him till dead, dead, DEAD!
Finally, the ACLU could write an article without mentioning Roe v Wade now, could they? O’Conner has always taken that pro abortion position, and they ACLU loves her for it. Abortion on demand is one of the primary position that all Leftist organizations stake out. Cannot be a good lefty if you don’t. But, then, the ACLU supports the rights of convicted mass murderers to live while innocent fetus’s can be killed by knocked up juveniles. Go figure.
Looking forward, the ACLU noted that O’Connor’s replacement could directly affect the outcome of some of the most divisive legal questions facing America today history. The nominee could, for instance, reverse the court’s growing discomfort with the death penalty; grant the president greater authority to detain Americans without charge, trial or access to counsel in the name of national security; and uphold troubling parts of the Patriot Act.
Tough. We are at war. How about protecting the Right of American citizens to not be killed in suicide/homicide attacks? That might be nice. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything against the death penalty, a form of punishment which was used before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution, and, if one reads the papers of the time, was supported by the Framers. And it is up to the People, not the Court or the ACLU, to decide if the death penalty should be used. The Will of the Majority. And the Patriot Act? There has been one confirmed misuse of it, and that was in Summit, NJ, which, last time I looked, was a Blue state. Google Summit, NJ, and homeless man.
It is time to stop the ACLU, and there are many others working for this. Go to Stop the ACLU for the full details, as well as visiting these other fine folks in today’s blogburst
Awesome job matey! I’m gonna let you in on a little secret. I’m not making the official announcement till this afternoon, cause I will be travelling and stuff, but…shhhhh…you won the caption contest! Go to our store, pick out one item you want, and get in contact with Cao…she will need the address where to send it too. Congrats.