Why isn't the ACLU fighting for our civil liberties ?

[the other mike]

In fact, unless you're gay, need an abortion, or your housing project has rats, they're
a generally worthless organization actually.

As freedoms vanish across the country the ACLU has filed dozens of lawsuits,
none protecting the Bill of Rights.

 

[martybegan]

In fact, unless you're gay, need an abortion, or your housing project has rats, they're
a generally worthless organization actually.

As freedoms vanish across the country the ACLU has filed dozens of lawsuits,
none protecting the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU has been taken over by the collectivists and the SJW types.

They are OK with government action when it protects people they like only.

 

[Sunsettommy]

ACLU were the ones who destroyed the Boy Scouts, may they burn in hell.

Boy Scouts of America files for bankruptcy after sex abuse lawsuits

LINK

 

[Lysistrata]

The ACLU has even defended Nazis. It doesn't matter. The ACLU has always protected civil rights. What is it that this organization is not doing that it is supposed to do?

 

[TNHarley]

The ACLU is nothing more than a political entity. This shouldnt surprise anyone.

 

[Lysistrata]

So what is the ACLU not doing that it should do? What are the objections to its activities?

 

[Sunni Man]

The ACLU is a globalist organization ran by radical commie jews that hate America. ...

 

[TNHarley]

So what is the ACLU not doing that it should do? What are the objections to its activities?

Standing up for civil liberties, like they claim they do.
States have shit all over the bill of rights the last couple months.

 

[Lysistrata]

So what is the ACLU not doing that it should do? What are the objections to its activities?

Standing up for civil liberties, like they claim they do.
States have shit all over the bill of rights the last couple months.

No specifics? Who has a case that s/he will bring to the ACLU and is it viable enough to litigate?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The ACLU decisions to represent people and groups are inconsistent, they exist to protect freedom and Liberty, but too often they support those who are in America illegally.

The ACLU’s Selective Compassion

Robert Knight

Posted: Oct 24, 2017

Excerpt:

Under the Trump Administration, the federal government no longer wants to be complicit in abortions performed on under-age teens who enter the country illegally.

To the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), refusing to facilitate the killing of these unborn children is “unprecedented, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s also unconscionable,” according to Brigitte Amiri, a senior ACLU staff lawyer.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya A. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, sided with the ACLU by ruling that a pregnant girl from Central America has a constitutional right to an abortion. The unborn child’s right to life? Nonexistent, despite the fact that at nearly 15 weeks, babies are little human beings with a head, neck, arms and legs, organs and sensitivity to light, not to mention a unique DNA. That’s just “tissue,” we’re told. There is no right to life under the ACLU’s – and the post-Roe v. Wade law’s – selective compassion.

LINK

=====

What an insane decision!

 

[Lysistrata]

The ACLU decisions to represent people and groups are inconsistent, they exist to protect freedom and Liberty, but too often they support those who are in America illegally.

The ACLU’s Selective Compassion

Robert Knight

Posted: Oct 24, 2017

Excerpt:

Under the Trump Administration, the federal government no longer wants to be complicit in abortions performed on under-age teens who enter the country illegally.

To the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), refusing to facilitate the killing of these unborn children is “unprecedented, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s also unconscionable,” according to Brigitte Amiri, a senior ACLU staff lawyer.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya A. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, sided with the ACLU by ruling that a pregnant girl from Central America has a constitutional right to an abortion. The unborn child’s right to life? Nonexistent, despite the fact that at nearly 15 weeks, babies are little human beings with a head, neck, arms and legs, organs and sensitivity to light, not to mention a unique DNA. That’s just “tissue,” we’re told. There is no right to life under the ACLU’s – and the post-Roe v. Wade law’s – selective compassion.

LINK

=====

What an insane decision!

There is nothing "insane" about this decision. She is being held against her will and time is a factor in having an abortion. The current shitty excuse of an administration is trying to force her to continue her pregnancy when she does not choose to. Rights should not depend on satisfying the religious demands of strangers whose religion one does not follow. There is nothing wrong with people not choosing your religion.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The ACLU decisions to represent people and groups are inconsistent, they exist to protect freedom and Liberty, but too often they support those who are in America illegally.

The ACLU’s Selective Compassion

Robert Knight

Posted: Oct 24, 2017

Excerpt:

Under the Trump Administration, the federal government no longer wants to be complicit in abortions performed on under-age teens who enter the country illegally.

To the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), refusing to facilitate the killing of these unborn children is “unprecedented, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s also unconscionable,” according to Brigitte Amiri, a senior ACLU staff lawyer.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya A. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, sided with the ACLU by ruling that a pregnant girl from Central America has a constitutional right to an abortion. The unborn child’s right to life? Nonexistent, despite the fact that at nearly 15 weeks, babies are little human beings with a head, neck, arms and legs, organs and sensitivity to light, not to mention a unique DNA. That’s just “tissue,” we’re told. There is no right to life under the ACLU’s – and the post-Roe v. Wade law’s – selective compassion.

LINK

=====

What an insane decision!

There is nothing "insane" about this decision. She is being held against her will and time is a factor in having an abortion. The current shitty excuse of an administration is trying to force her to continue her pregnancy when she does not choose to. Rights should not depend on satisfying the religious demands of strangers whose religion one does not follow. There is nothing wrong with people not choosing your religion.

You seem to overlook the part where she has ZERO rights, when she entered the country as an illegal alien, she isn't a citizen, thus doesn't have constitutional rights. She should be DEPORTED back to her native country.

 

[Lysistrata]

The ACLU decisions to represent people and groups are inconsistent, they exist to protect freedom and Liberty, but too often they support those who are in America illegally.

The ACLU’s Selective Compassion

Robert Knight

Posted: Oct 24, 2017

Excerpt:

Under the Trump Administration, the federal government no longer wants to be complicit in abortions performed on under-age teens who enter the country illegally.

To the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), refusing to facilitate the killing of these unborn children is “unprecedented, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s also unconscionable,” according to Brigitte Amiri, a senior ACLU staff lawyer.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya A. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, sided with the ACLU by ruling that a pregnant girl from Central America has a constitutional right to an abortion. The unborn child’s right to life? Nonexistent, despite the fact that at nearly 15 weeks, babies are little human beings with a head, neck, arms and legs, organs and sensitivity to light, not to mention a unique DNA. That’s just “tissue,” we’re told. There is no right to life under the ACLU’s – and the post-Roe v. Wade law’s – selective compassion.

LINK

=====

What an insane decision!

There is nothing "insane" about this decision. She is being held against her will and time is a factor in having an abortion. The current shitty excuse of an administration is trying to force her to continue her pregnancy when she does not choose to. Rights should not depend on satisfying the religious demands of strangers whose religion one does not follow. There is nothing wrong with people not choosing your religion.

You seem to overlook the part where she has ZERO rights, when she entered the country as an illegal alien, she isn't a citizen, thus doesn't have constitutional rights. She should be DEPORTED back to her native country.

She does have rights. This has been litigated over and over. The government is not entitled to enslave her. It should not be in the religion business at all.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The ACLU decisions to represent people and groups are inconsistent, they exist to protect freedom and Liberty, but too often they support those who are in America illegally.

The ACLU’s Selective Compassion

Robert Knight

Posted: Oct 24, 2017

Excerpt:

Under the Trump Administration, the federal government no longer wants to be complicit in abortions performed on under-age teens who enter the country illegally.

To the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), refusing to facilitate the killing of these unborn children is “unprecedented, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s also unconscionable,” according to Brigitte Amiri, a senior ACLU staff lawyer.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya A. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, sided with the ACLU by ruling that a pregnant girl from Central America has a constitutional right to an abortion. The unborn child’s right to life? Nonexistent, despite the fact that at nearly 15 weeks, babies are little human beings with a head, neck, arms and legs, organs and sensitivity to light, not to mention a unique DNA. That’s just “tissue,” we’re told. There is no right to life under the ACLU’s – and the post-Roe v. Wade law’s – selective compassion.

LINK

=====

What an insane decision!

There is nothing "insane" about this decision. She is being held against her will and time is a factor in having an abortion. The current shitty excuse of an administration is trying to force her to continue her pregnancy when she does not choose to. Rights should not depend on satisfying the religious demands of strangers whose religion one does not follow. There is nothing wrong with people not choosing your religion.

You seem to overlook the part where she has ZERO rights, when she entered the country as an illegal alien, she isn't a citizen, thus doesn't have constitutional rights. She should be DEPORTED back to her native country.

She does have rights. This has been litigated over and over. The government is not entitled to enslave her. It should not be in the religion business at all.

I never advocated "enslaving" her, I already stated DEPORT her, for entering the country illegally. No she doesn't have any Constitutional rights since she isn't a citizen, which is why she should be deported.