The “Non-Partisan” ACLU

by Big Dog on Jan 12, 2006 at 13:27 Stop the ACLU

The ACLU has opposed the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. They have only opposed two nominees in the past and no surprise, they were both conservatives (Rehnquist and Bork). The ACLU would like us to believe that their lawyers know more about the law and civil liberties than a judge who has applied the law equally and fairly throughout his career. Unlike ACLU lawyers (Ginsburg et al) who have one goal and that is the denial of the civil liberties of most Americans. People at the ACLU can claim they protect civil liberties but when their actions deny the civil liberties of others it is easy to conclude that only the liberties they deem important and only the groups they represent are important.

Here are a few troubling things, according to the ACLU:

FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Alito argued that a student-led prayer at a graduation ceremony did not violate the Establishment Clause.
PRIVACY: Alito dissented in a ruling that the strip search of a suspect’s wife and ten-year-old daughter was unconstitutional.
PRISONERS’ RIGHTS: Alito argued that a policy barring prisoners in long-term segregation from possessing newspapers, magazines or photographs unless they were religious or legal did not violate the First Amendment.

I am no lawyer nor am I a legal scholar but I can say that Alito explained the first item by telling the Senators he applied past rulings that dealt with the right of an individual. He viewed the students who VOTED to have a prayer at their graduation as a collective individual and therefore they did not violate the establishment clause. I find it interesting that God was mentioned several times during the hearings and I believe that members from both parties invoked his name. However, in a democratic society when people vote on something the majority wins. The students voted to have a prayer at the graduation and the majority won. The school did not endorse the prayer and the students selected the person who delivered it.

In the search of the 10 year old, Alito explained that the warrant covered the people on the premises and that the police acted within the scope of the warrant when they searched the girl. What the ACLU and the rest of the anti-Alito crowd is not telling the public is that the drugs were found on the girl. They were hidden by the criminal in an attempt to break the law. Where are all the children’s advocates who are supposed to be protecting children from being exploited? The fact is, Alito was right when he said that if we do not search children at a scene where a warrant is executed, where do you think criminals will hide the drugs? I want the ACLU to explain how the police are supposed to know how many people (and their ages) are going to be in a house where a warrant is executed. If the neighbor was visiting, would he not be subject to search when the warrant was executed? It just seems to me that when you have a warrant to search the premises and the people on the premises it includes children. Once again, the kid had the drugs.

In the last case I would have to ask, by virtue of being a prisoner, don’t you lose certain rights anyway? You lose liberty so what next? Will the ACLU argue that locking up a criminal violates the Constitution because the person loses the right to roam freely about the country? In this case the prison would not let the criminal have access to certain materials while he was in long term segregation. Was he segregated because he was being punished and if so, was denial of access to certain items part of that process? Besides, how can denying a person a newspaper violate the First Amendment? They did not deny this person’s right to speak. They did not deny this person’s right to communicate. Are we obligated to provide newspapers, books, television and every other media to prisoners? Do they have to pay for these items or is the taxpayer buying them? Criminals already have more protections than the average citizen. Hell, they get to pray to Satan in jail while the rest of us are castigated by the ACLU for mentioning Christmas in public.

The ACLU does not want Alito on the bench because he uses common sense and practical application of the law in his approach and this scares the ACLU. They want judges who legislate from the bench. They want more Ginsbergs who will use foreign laws and the ACLU’s idea of law to decide our cases because they have a goal of communism in this country. We need to get rid of this organization before they ruin our freedoms and turn us into another North Korea.

As a side note, the ACLU is real big on crying about rights denied to Americans and then they talk about terrorists whose rights were violated when they committed crimes. Many of these people are not citizens. Hey ACLU, non-citizens ARE NOT covered by our Constitution. We do not owe them any rights other than basic decency. American citizens who commit acts of treason against this country are ENEMIES of the country and can be treated like any other enemy we capture. In addition, your organization is an enemy of this country and its liberties. I hope one day we can talk about how well you folks are doing down at Club Gitmo.

Trackback to:
Stop the ACLU

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 12th, 2006 at 13:27 and is filed under Stop the ACLU. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.