Cynical Nation

I don't belong to either organization, but I look at ACLU meetings as "target rich environments."

Would that qualify me as an honorary member of that elite?

withoutfeathers, you don't seem to know anything about the ACLU or what they do. They are an entirely non-partisan organization dedicated to defending the Constitution. The ACLU has joined in lawsuits with the religious right over religious issues in schools, for example, as much as they have opposed the religious right. They have defended the free speech rights of Nazis and the free speech rights of little girls who want to sing a song in a school program about her love of her god (the Awesome God case) and the free speech rights of someone who wants to wear a T-shirt with a dirty word on it. It is a truly remarkable organization in that it is all about right and wrong and principle and not about politics at all, regardless of the member's personal political leanings. They'll defend your right to keep and bear arms, too, when it is threatened. I know you think you were being funny, but statements like that don't do you any credit and simply show that you don't know what you are talking about. And another thing: if you go to a rally for some reason and get arrested, if they take on your case they won't ask you if you are a member or not and they won't charge you a dime for their services. They're all about protecting your civil liberties without regard to your politics.

source: www.aclu.org

"Judge Alito’s record regarding civil rights, privacy and a women’s right to choose places him well outside the mainstream and makes him a threat to the rights and liberties of all Americans. If our Senators truly care about our freedoms then they will oppose this nomination and make justified use of the filibuster to stop it."

Yeah, non-partisan...righhhht.

Dear anonymous person,

The rights that the ACLU protects are the rights you will want for yourself if you ever need them, and Alito does in fact have an extraordinary record of favoring government powers over civil liberties. Why wouldn't an organization dedicated to defending civil liberties oppose the nomination of an Associate Justice who has proven himself, in decision after decision, to support the power of government ahead of the rights of citizens?

Seriously, you really don't seem to know what you're talking about. I recommend a lot more study and maybe a conversation or two with an ACLU representative. Do you really think the theory of the "unitary president" would be pleasing to any organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties?

Do I really have to get go find some fo the work the ACLU has been doing for the sake of Rush Limbaugh and his drug bust? They've been on his side in that. According to you, anonymous person, if I quote their support for Limbaugh, that makes the ACLU a neo-con organization. If I quote their support for the neo-Nazis when the neo-Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, IL, that makes the ACLU neo-Nazis.

Trust me when I tell you that ignorance makes poor armor.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be anonymous...that was an oversight.

Your statement "...Alito does in fact have an extraordinary record of favoring government powers over civil liberties" is extraordinarily untrue. What stands out in most of his decisions his deferrence to law rather than sentiment. His dissent in Doe vs Goody, for example, merely argued that the police officers in question had reason to believe that the warrant entitled them to "search all occupants" as had been requested and as such should have been protected by qualified immunity. That's not an attack on civil liberties, it's a dispute over how specific a warrant needs to be for a drug-bust.

Why don't you list out a few of those "...decision[s] after decision[s]..." that you are so worried about, and explain why you think they are so alarming.

Unitary executive authority may be constitutionally shakey, but doesn't appear to me to be a terrifying threat either. Most presidents have tested the limits of their authority and have often been pushed back by one of the other branches of the government.

Rush Limbaugh has never been "busted" for drugs -- even thought the investigation/jihad against him just passed its third anniversary. Having once been similarly victimized, I am much more afraid of people (like you) who have no hesitation about accusing specific individuals of crimes for which no evidence exists.

I haven't said anything about neocons or neo-nazis. You have no grounds to construe my meaning from anything I haven't said.

You clearly have an axe to grind and, trust me...I don't trust you at all, so I'm not going to trust you on this.

You are sort of right. Limbaugh's medical records were subpoenaed and the ACLU joined in defending his right to privacy in that case. Funny how Limbaugh is cool with privacy rights when it comes to him.

But I see you decided to abandon your attacks on the ACLU in favor of nitpicking side issues. This discussion was about your claims regarding the ACLU and your threat to shoot its members. "Target rich environment" remind you of anything? Funny how you accuse me in a thread where you expressed your desire to shoot a bunch of people whose "offense" is defending civil liberties. With your side issues and refusal to address the main issue or the main thrust of what I said, I have a hard time taking you seriously now.

So out of left field you want to drag me through some massive discussion of Alito's judicial philosophy, which was a side issue to begin with (and please don't try to tell me that I started that; you decided to quote the ACLU web site on Alito as, I am guessing, proof of their bias, when in fact it only proved that they didn't like Alito's stand on civil liberty issues...and ignored the points I made about other cases the ACLU has taken on and what those cases say about their partisanship...shall I remind you every other sentence that alleged ACLU partisanship is what this whole thing was about or do you think you can remember that for more than a few seconds at a time? "Axe to grind" indeed. Who's grinding an axe here?)

In summary, you haven't refuted a single point I made about the ACLU's non-partisanship and are now hiding behind side issues and moving the discussion to something entirely different, a discussion too time-consuming for me to give it my attention (I work full time, blog at four different sites, participate in activist organizations, and have a wife who likes to spend time with me--proving you wrong, withoutfeathers, is not high on my list of priorities).

Do you have anything else to say about alleged ACLU partisanship? Since you know how to find the ACLU web site, you should be able to see the JOIN button on the site. It is only $20 for a basic membership and it might give you a warm feeling to be a member the next time they defend Nazis, Rush Limbaugh, or the right of a Christian organization to use public school facilities for after-school prayer meetings, things that they have done regularly.

You are sort of right. Limbaugh's medical records were subpoenaed and the ACLU joined in defending his right to privacy in that case.

I'm not "sort of right" about this. Limbaugh has never been "busted" for drugs, period. If you have evidence that he has ever violated U.S., Florida or any other drug laws, then you have a legal obligation to share that evidence with the appropriate law enfocement agency. Otherwise, you should really stop defaming the man.

Funny how Limbaugh is cool with privacy rights when it comes to him.

Please point to evidence that he opposes privacy rights for anyone else.

But I see you decided to abandon your attacks on the ACLU in favor of nitpicking side issues.

No, I responded to your assertions by explaining why I do not support the ACLU. Instead of using your tactic of engaging in personal attacks, I provided an example in support of my position.

This discussion was about your claims regarding the ACLU...

What claims?

...and your threat to shoot its members.

My "...threat to shoot its members"? Liar.

"Target rich environment" remind you of anything? Funny how you accuse me in a thread where you expressed your desire to shoot a bunch of people whose "offense" is defending civil liberties.

My "...desire to shoot a bunch of people..."? liar!

With your side issues and refusal to address the main issue or the main thrust of what I said, I have a hard time taking you seriously now.

Yeah...that's what I thought. I can spot a lib a mile away. Probably a Democrat too.

So out of left field you want to drag me through some massive discussion of Alito's judicial philosophy, which was a side issue to begin with (and please don't try to tell me that I started that; you decided to quote the ACLU web site on Alito as, I am guessing, proof of their bias, when in fact it only proved that they didn't like Alito's stand on civil liberty issues...and ignored the points I made about other cases the ACLU has taken on and what those cases say about their partisanship...shall I remind you every other sentence that alleged ACLU partisanship is what this whole thing was about or do you think you can remember that for more than a few seconds at a time? "Axe to grind" indeed. Who's grinding an axe here?)

I provided an example of why I hold my opinion of the ACLU. I'm sorry if that eviscerated your argument that the ACLU is "non-partisan" but that's the kind of thing that happens when you engage in a debate with someone who knows the facts -- get used to it, or don't engage in debates.

In summary, you haven't refuted a single point I made about the ACLU's non-partisanship and are now hiding behind side issues and moving the discussion to something entirely different,

An example of partisanship definitively refutes an assertion of "non-partisanship" period.

...a discussion too time-consuming for me to give it my attention (I work full time, blog at four different sites, participate in activist organizations,).

I'll take that as an admission that you have lost the argument and have nothing further to offer on the subject.

...and have a wife who likes to spend time with me--proving you wrong, withoutfeathers, is not high on my list of priorities

Uhhhh...did you remember to take your meds this morning? What does your wife have to do with this discussion? And please don't beat up on your wife just because you're angry at me.

Do you have anything else to say about alleged ACLU partisanship?

Yes.

Since you know how to find the ACLU web site, you should be able to see the JOIN button on the site. It is only $20 for a basic membership and it might give you a warm feeling to be a member the next time they defend Nazis, Rush Limbaugh, or the right of a Christian organization to use public school facilities for after-school prayer meetings, things that they have done regularly.

No thanks. Pretty slick though, the way you try to equate Rush Limbaugh and Christians with Nazis. Tells me everything I need to know about YOUR objectivity!

Wow, you sound so overwrought. Are all conservatives always so angry?

> Are all conservatives always so angry?

Yes, but we look positively sanguine compared with the uninterrupted rage that flows from the port side of the blogosphere these days.

You mistake passion for anger. Not an unusual mistake from starboard.

Anger? Where do you see anger in my posts. Come on now: Be specific.

Screaming accusations that I am bent on murder really doesn't qualify as "passion" in any good sense of the word.

BTW, I'm serious about not wanting to see your wife get hurt just because I disagreed with you. Please don't take this out on her. Help is only a phone call away if you find yourself going over the edge.

I'm not a member of either, but I'm generally positive about both organizations.