ACLU asks delay of recall vote

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No, Berz. The ACLU is against school prayer in any form.
If you really want, I'll track down "official" info.

I triple-dog-dare you to. The ACLU is not opposed to people being religious in school, except when when it is a school function or impares the rights of those who are not fellow pray-ers.

The ACLU is defends the Bill of Rights. That's all they do. If you don't like the Bill of Rights, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to China.

[Boris Godunov]

Notice how Sloww seems to forget the ACLU has fought to defend the rights of Christians to practice their beliefs, too.

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142

[chequita guevara]

That doesn't fit in with the reactionaries view of the ACLU as rabid liberals. Maybe if they'd just stop trying to force everyone to agree to their views and just accept the Constitution, the ACLU wouldn't have to fight them most of the time.

[Dinner]

I'm calling bull****! The ACLU must certainly does have an ideological bone to pick and they are constintently looking to set up double standards. For instance the ACLU calls to terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits on the grounds that it is not fair unless poor people get a larger voucher then middle and upper income people ( ), they've claimed that students don't even have the right to bring a bible to school to read on their own time yet perversely sued to allow a muslim organization the right to use a school after hours on the grounds there wasn't a community center availible for the muslims to use (either don't allow any religions to use public property or allow them all but playing favorities just smacks of liberal bias), Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches on the grounds they dabble in politics--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various no christian groups who do the exact same thing, they argue that quotes forcing companies to hire black people just because of their race is equal protection, I can go on and on...

The ACLU is a rabidly political organization just accept it. Most of their positions have very little to do with the law and a whole lot to do with ideology. Is that necissarially bad? No, but let's ditch the fake cloak about them just being here to protect the people's rights because that's not what the ACLU is about at all. When it comes down to it the ACLU is just another PAC out to pay off politicians and to litigate their bigoted little views.

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Blah blah blah more bile against the ACLU. Can anyone produce a documented instance of them acting to "taking away" people's freedoms? Nonsense.

Oerdin just ran down a few.

Oh, and in the 2002 election, the ACLU was trying to make sure voting was fair. But when it's all 50 states voting nationwide instead of the circus we have in California now, things don't get as noticed.

True, but as even chegitz points out, the ACLU agreed to have the machines replaced "after" Davis' re-election, but now the ACLU is backtracking on that deal by insisting this recall take place later to match the terms of that agreement.

I thank the ACLU, as they have been an invaluable force for preserving civil liberties everyone here seems to take for granted.

Not when they seek to destroy our freedoms.

chegitz -

The ACLU sued California in 2001 over the continued use of these machines. The State of California settled with the ACLU and agreed to replace these machines by March 1st, 2004. Since the election falls so close to the replacement date, their position is that it's not an imposition on the state to wait so that all of California's voters have the same rights to vote.

Apparently it is an imposition on those who voted for the recall in accordance with the law since I doubt they were wanting Davis recalled some time next year, but notice how the ACLU was content to wait until after Davis' re-election then and now take a position conspicuously advantageous to Davis?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The ACLU sued California in 2001 over the continued use of these machines. The State of California settled with the ACLU and agreed to replace these machines by March 1st, 2004. Since the election falls so close to the replacement date, their position is that it's not an imposition on the state to wait so that all of California's voters have the same rights to vote.

So the ACLU consented to letting the 2002 election proceed under the old system, and raised no issues with its results.

Yet now, without any evidence that California's voting system as it exists now is anywhere nearly as ****ed up as Florida's allegedly was, the ACLU wants a Federal court, for the first time in US history, to stay a state office election before the election has even taken place. Yep, that's right, those great "constitutional" advocates want the Federal judiciary to stick it's nose where it has no basis being, on the hypothetical question of what might happen. Let's not let those damned voters actually vote. Let's tell them it would be unfair, before they've actually had the chance, and stall the election. And what a coincidence, it happens to help a tax and spend liberal's darling boy, even if he is inept.

[uh Clem]

At the time of the state settlement with the ACLU, the assumption by both sides was that the machines would be replaced before the next major statewide election (ie, one in which statewide elective office is at stake). Thus the March 1, 2004 effective date.

The ACLU's position here is consistent with the spirit of that agreement: there should be no new statewide elections on the old machinery. One can disagree, but it's hard to argue that the ACLU is being ridiculously out of line or partisan. Unless you're a wing-nut or something.

[Berzerker]

The ACLU did not demand the machines be replaced before the 2002 election so the urgency now is suspect.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The ACLU did not demand the machines be replaced before the 2002 election so the urgency now is suspect.

The 2001 lawsuit was entirely based on the 2002 elections. The ACLU was suing to make sure THOSE elections were fair. The State of California settled with the ACLU, promising to have things fixed by the date in 2004, on the presumption that would be the next statewide election. The ACLU accepted California's position that the demands were impossible to meet by 2002, but wanted to make sure it would all be in place before the next election.

They did not expect the recall, which brought about the statewide election far earlier than thought. Since the ACLU made the settlement under the presumption that things would be fixed by the next election, their position here is entirely consistent with their past actions.

And Oerdin didn't cite any specific cases, just the typical hysteria over the ACLU. I want to see the details of those instances and the exact position of the ACLU and why it took the stance it did. Too often, I see right wingers froth at the mouth based on second- and third- hand information that is a distortion of the actual cases.

Now, I have certainly disagree with their stances on many issues, especially the recent Florida case of the Muslim woman and her driver's license, but I've yet to see any example of them working to deprive people of their rights. Mostly, I see people blissfully ignoring all the times they have stood up for the rights of individuals, regardless of who they are.

[Berzerker]

Boris - A judge has just ruled against the ACLU based on their inability to show that voter "dis-enfranchisement" occured in 2002 and that it will happen again. Of course the ACLU couldn't know a recall would happen, but the terms of the agreement were to have the machines replaced by 2004, their presumptions aside. If the ACLU accepted that the state did not have the time to replace the machines between 2001 and the election in 2002, then it is inconsistent to demand this election be delayed. The voters who want the recall vote have the expectation their wishes will be honored in accordance with the law, not the schedules of the ACLU and Gray Davis.

As for specific cases of the ACLU taking away our freedoms, Oerdin did cite a number of cases. The ACLU does support Affirmative Action which is taking away our freedom. The ACLU does oppose voucher programs which would give parents some relief (a restoration of some freedom) when making decisions about the education of their children. Where is the ACLU when localities take away the right to own guns? Where is the ACLU in the drug war? I can cite cases of the ACLU taking away freedoms and standing by as others take away our freedoms.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Boris - A judge has just ruled against the ACLU based on their inability to show that voter "dis-enfranchisement" occured in 2002 and that it will happen again. Of course the ACLU couldn't know a recall would happen, but the terms of the agreement were to have the machines replaced by 2004, their presumptions aside. If the ACLU accepted that the state did not have the time to replace the machines between 2001 and the election in 2002, then it is inconsistent to demand this election be delayed. The voters who want the recall vote have the expectation their wishes will be honored in accordance with the law, not the schedules of the ACLU and Gray Davis.

The current ruling aside, the State of California settled with the ACLU in 2001 over the issue and promised to address the situation, so obviously there were problems. That the ACLU is suing over the recall now and trying to have it delayes isn't comparable to the 2002 election, since one is a constitutionally-mandated election whose date is set, and the other is an extraordinary election where the date is flexible. The ACLU's primary concern is that EVERY voter, whether they support the recall or not, has a fair and equal opportunity to vote. I don't see anything inconsistent between their position then and now.

As for specific cases of the ACLU taking away our freedoms, Oerdin did cite a number of cases. The ACLU does support Affirmative Action which is taking away our freedom. The ACLU does oppose voucher programs which would give parents some relief (a restoration of some freedom) when making decisions about the education of their children. Where is the ACLU when localities take away the right to own guns? Where is the ACLU in the drug war? I can cite cases of the ACLU taking away freedoms and standing by as others take away our freedoms.

No, Oerdin listed cases without any supporting information. Sorry, but considering the number of times I've seen people distort the positions and actions of the ACLU, I'm not inclined to take his word for it. I want to see the ACLU's actual position. Affirmative Action taking away freedoms? Ludicrous. Whose freedom does it take away? The same is true for vouchers--what freedom is guaranteed that allows someone to use public tax dollars to fund private schools?

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

"The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

You may not agree with it, but I think it's consistent with standard Constitutional interpretation.

The drug war?

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/drugpolicy/hmdrugpolicy.html

"The ACLU has opposed the outright criminalization of drugs since 1968, believing that the best way to deal with drugs is regulation, not incarceration."

The ACLU has been consistent in opposing unfair drug searches and other enforcement practices.

Citing cases where the ACLU was "standing by" is meaningless, since they can't be everywhere at all times.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You may not agree with it, but I think it's consistent with standard Constitutional interpretation.

I'm not exactly sure about that, esp. in light of recent cases or from looking at the text.

[Dinner]

The ACLU got shot down by a court in San Fransisco of all places. If the liberals can't even when in the most liberal court circuit in the country then maybe they should rethink their position.

[realpolitic]

Some of those computerized machines have been used to steal elections. Sen. Chuck Hegel, who owned the company which made them

"recieved" 83% of the vote.The fraud in Florida is nothing compared to what these machines have done.

[Dinner]

Affirmative Action taking away freedoms? Ludicrous. Whose freedom does it take away?

The claim they made was that affirmitive action was always continutional and should always remain constitutional. I.E. making race the controling factor in hireing shouldn't be seen as a violation of the constitution's guaranty that all citizens would be equal before the law and recieve equal protection from the law. Even the furthest left liberals on the supreme court knew this was an outriht lie and instead voted saying it was a temperary measure needed to cure racism.

The same is true for vouchers--what freedom is guaranteed that allows someone to use public tax dollars to fund private schools?

You're putting the burden in the wrong place. The constitution guarantees the states have all powers not expressly granted to the federal government yet the ACLU has sued in Federal court claiming it is unconstitutional to let parents decide which school their child should attend. As usual the ACLU is dead wrong and they will lose the case but it just goes to show you how utterly politicized an organization the ACLU is.

I'm not saying the ACLU is evil. I am saying they're not the "Guardians of the Constitutial liberties" which the ACLU claims itself to be. They're a PAC just like any other PAC.