BREAKING NEWS: Justice Souter to Retire

Maybe you don't understand my question correctly.

Why would the AMERICAN civil liberties union, defend a FOREIGN citizen? Especially if he's being charged with terrorism... you know, the same kind of terrorism that brought down our towers on 9/11?

Why not let Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross or any of the other far left international organizations take care of this. Why does an AMERICAN leftist organization have to do this?

because anything that can be done to someone else... can be done to you.

and they aren't being "tried".... that was the problem.
 
Look for a very far left judge to replace him. With 60 votes in the Senate it's a shoe-in.

I don't know about that. You have a lot of blue dogs who have to go back to their constituents to get re-elected. I think they'll go left, obviously, but not far-left wack job territory.
 
I hope somebody in New Hampshire uses eminent domain to seize his farmhouse before he leaves the bench. The Lost Liberty Hotel would look much better.
 
this will be interesting
will Obama go far left like GInsburg, or replace him with a moderate, like Souter was
 
Then why are they defending foreign citizens who are being tried as terrorists?

Why? Because sometimes one has to defend the rights of others to protect one's own rights? Why did ISrael give Eichman a fair trial?

Maybe you don't understand my question correctly.

Why would the AMERICAN civil liberties union, defend a FOREIGN citizen? Especially if he's being charged with terrorism... you know, the same kind of terrorism that brought down our towers on 9/11?

Why not let Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross or any of the other far left international organizations take care of this. Why does an AMERICAN leftist organization have to do this?

The principles involved are seperate from the personalities. It is starting to look like your critical thinking skills are in the proverbial camel-hole. ACLU is NOT leftist, but like me they are liberal. Funny thing...liberals stand up for civil rights regardless.

and btw..

Human rights watch and other groups do not have standing in our courts on all the issues they care about.
 
for one they don't see it as a civil liberty and they did defend it in Texas with regards to women's rights.

Well, it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights along with the other liberties. If what you say is correct, then the ACLU is really playing politics and picking and choosing, rather than adhering to principle.

And this is somewhat true today. If you look historically at ACLU cases, you'll see they did defend what you might think of as more conservative causes over time. If it was a civil liberty, they got involved. In the past two decades or so, they've become a more partisan-aligned group, and so they tend to not be as proactively as they might be (or as they once were) on some issues.
 
the ACLU defends civil rights of every American, you idiot.

Then why are they defending foreign citizens who are being tried as terrorists?

and why dont i see them defending the 2nd amendment?

Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.
 
the ACLU defends civil rights of every American, you idiot.

Then why are they defending foreign citizens who are being tried as terrorists?

and why dont i see them defending the 2nd amendment?

Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.

Second Amendment


Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html
 
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that's disingenuous, particularly coming from lawyers who ought to understand the reasoning and history of the amendment. The fact is, the ACLU chooses to view it as a collective right for political reasons, and then puts out the talking points in support of it. That's what I am talking about by picking and choosing.
 
for one they don't see it as a civil liberty and they did defend it in Texas with regards to women's rights.

Well, it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights along with the other liberties. If what you say is correct, then the ACLU is really playing politics and picking and choosing, rather than adhering to principle.

And this is somewhat true today. If you look historically at ACLU cases, you'll see they did defend what you might think of as more conservative causes over time. If it was a civil liberty, they got involved. In the past two decades or so, they've become a more partisan-aligned group, and so they tend to not be as proactively as they might be (or as they once were) on some issues.
actually it wasn't women rights that was wrong on my part and they defended it in Texas recently.

This is their point of view, not saying I agree but this what they posted on their website.

Second Amendment


Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

American Civil Liberties Union : Second Amendment
 
Why? Because sometimes one has to defend the rights of others to protect one's own rights? Why did ISrael give Eichman a fair trial?

Maybe you don't understand my question correctly.

Why would the AMERICAN civil liberties union, defend a FOREIGN citizen? Especially if he's being charged with terrorism... you know, the same kind of terrorism that brought down our towers on 9/11?

Why not let Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross or any of the other far left international organizations take care of this. Why does an AMERICAN leftist organization have to do this?

ACLU is NOT leftist

That's like saying Skinheads aren't rightists. OF COURSE THE ACLU IS A FAR LEFT FRINGE GROUP.

Everything they've done in the past decade has been to defend the civil liberties of foreign citiziens who have tried to commit terrorism!! If you are an AMERICAN lawyer, you defend AMERICANS - NOT FOREIGNERS - ESPECIALLY FOREIGNERS WHO TRIED TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!
 

Forum List

Back
Top