RESOLVED: The ACLU is a bunch of pinko commie crackpots...
Question: Although the ACLU often defends unsavory organizations and individuals, doesn't it do so in the course of standing up for broader American ideals and principles?
Answer: Any good lawyer can make some case for just about any position. That doesn’t mean it has any real merit. For example, there are arguments in favor of dictatorship. A strong central leader can act as a strong counter-balance to bickering and warring local leaders. A strong central leader can be counted on to provide for a strong national defense and a high level of order. There are arguments in favor of censorship. Radical ideas have a tendency to agitate people and can incite unrest and even violence. There are arguments in favor of police brutality. Despite the fact that certain individuals may be inconvenienced and/or injured, lessening the restrictions on police interrogation methods would almost certainly increase police effectiveness in fighting crime. There are arguments in favor of pedophilia. Engaging in pedophilia will increase the pleasure experienced by a pedophile and may improve his personal mental well-being. For the child, the adult with whom the child has close contact may be the only adult contact the child has meaningful contact. Why would you want to deny that child that meaningful contact? My point is, you can come up with an argument in favor of ANYTHING you can think up. Whatever the downside may be, there is always SOME argument which could be made in favor of some idea. That doesn’t mean that the idea isn’t, on balance, stupid or completely wrongheaded.
In its early days, the ACLU functioned as a socialist/Communist legal defense organization, and it has not strayed that far from its socialist/Communist roots. I realize that, to some, Communist isn’t a bad word, and I realize that, to many, using the term “Communist,” or even "socialist" is likely to get one branded a McCarthyite, but if it looks like a duck, and it acts like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, and it came from a duck, it’s most likely…. a FREAKIN’ DUCK!!!
The problem with the ACLU isn’t that it stands up for principles. The problem with the ACLU is that IT DOESN’T STAND UP FOR PRINCIPLES. The ACLU stands up for TEAMS and for IDEOLOGIES. If you’re on their TEAM and you ascribe to politically-correct LEFTIST IDEOLOGY, they will help you. If you don’t toe the line, you’re on your own. To hell with principle.
In many contexts the ACLU functions as the legal wing of the Democratic National Committee. While the ACLU routinely files lawsuits to overturn elections in which Republicans win, I don't know of a single lawsuit filed by the ACLU to overturn an election in which a Democrat beat a Republican. If there hasn't, in fact, been one, doesn’t that speak volumes about their agenda as opposed to their purported PRINCIPLES?
The ACLU will come absolutely UNGLUED if anyone tries to control an anti-war protest, but is 100% ON BOARD when the authorities are ready to shut up anti-abortion protesters. They will even file amicus briefs explaining why it’s OK to do so.
The ACLU will deploy armies of lawyers to block school vouchers, but doesn’t have the time or inclination to protect an individual student’s right to free speech.
The ACLU is dedicated to the proposition that the FIRST AMENDMENT is sufficiently broad to protect an artist stuffing a crucifix in poop, but the SECOND AMENDMENT is not sufficiently broad to protect repeating rifles.
The ACLU doesn’t appear to even believe that there are people who have dedicated their lives to killing Americans and Jews, and the organization is happy to do everything in its power to prevent any such people from being identified.
In my humble opinion, there is very little to commend the ACLU, regardless of its purported ideals.
Answer: Any good lawyer can make some case for just about any position. That doesn’t mean it has any real merit. For example, there are arguments in favor of dictatorship. A strong central leader can act as a strong counter-balance to bickering and warring local leaders. A strong central leader can be counted on to provide for a strong national defense and a high level of order. There are arguments in favor of censorship. Radical ideas have a tendency to agitate people and can incite unrest and even violence. There are arguments in favor of police brutality. Despite the fact that certain individuals may be inconvenienced and/or injured, lessening the restrictions on police interrogation methods would almost certainly increase police effectiveness in fighting crime. There are arguments in favor of pedophilia. Engaging in pedophilia will increase the pleasure experienced by a pedophile and may improve his personal mental well-being. For the child, the adult with whom the child has close contact may be the only adult contact the child has meaningful contact. Why would you want to deny that child that meaningful contact? My point is, you can come up with an argument in favor of ANYTHING you can think up. Whatever the downside may be, there is always SOME argument which could be made in favor of some idea. That doesn’t mean that the idea isn’t, on balance, stupid or completely wrongheaded.
In its early days, the ACLU functioned as a socialist/Communist legal defense organization, and it has not strayed that far from its socialist/Communist roots. I realize that, to some, Communist isn’t a bad word, and I realize that, to many, using the term “Communist,” or even "socialist" is likely to get one branded a McCarthyite, but if it looks like a duck, and it acts like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, and it came from a duck, it’s most likely…. a FREAKIN’ DUCK!!!
The problem with the ACLU isn’t that it stands up for principles. The problem with the ACLU is that IT DOESN’T STAND UP FOR PRINCIPLES. The ACLU stands up for TEAMS and for IDEOLOGIES. If you’re on their TEAM and you ascribe to politically-correct LEFTIST IDEOLOGY, they will help you. If you don’t toe the line, you’re on your own. To hell with principle.
In many contexts the ACLU functions as the legal wing of the Democratic National Committee. While the ACLU routinely files lawsuits to overturn elections in which Republicans win, I don't know of a single lawsuit filed by the ACLU to overturn an election in which a Democrat beat a Republican. If there hasn't, in fact, been one, doesn’t that speak volumes about their agenda as opposed to their purported PRINCIPLES?
The ACLU will come absolutely UNGLUED if anyone tries to control an anti-war protest, but is 100% ON BOARD when the authorities are ready to shut up anti-abortion protesters. They will even file amicus briefs explaining why it’s OK to do so.
The ACLU will deploy armies of lawyers to block school vouchers, but doesn’t have the time or inclination to protect an individual student’s right to free speech.
The ACLU is dedicated to the proposition that the FIRST AMENDMENT is sufficiently broad to protect an artist stuffing a crucifix in poop, but the SECOND AMENDMENT is not sufficiently broad to protect repeating rifles.
The ACLU doesn’t appear to even believe that there are people who have dedicated their lives to killing Americans and Jews, and the organization is happy to do everything in its power to prevent any such people from being identified.
In my humble opinion, there is very little to commend the ACLU, regardless of its purported ideals.
posted by Eman at 4:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home