| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
26 Mar 2005 03:05:00 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050323.html
ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America
The American Civil Liberties Union and others have systematically
pursued cases to the highest court in the land to weaken our national
identity, claiming "rights" of the few outweigh "We the people"
and 230 years of history. The idealistic, philosophical and worldly
Black Robes ignore our nation's constitution and original intent.
They acquiesce to an "unoriginal intent" not ever postulated by the
founders.
Over the past 60 years the subtle actions of the ACLU and the federal
courts have undermined what had always been understood by Americans.
The "melting pot" included the solid belief that America's
national identity was as a Christian nation and immigrants accepted
this tenet of the United States. According to the ACLU and the U.S.
Supremes, we are to believe this is less than historical fact.
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
29 Mar 2005 11:08:18 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111806300.177122.132310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050323.html
ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America
The American Civil Liberties Union and others have systematically
pursued cases to the highest court in the land to weaken our national
identity, claiming "rights" of the few outweigh "We the people"
and 230 years of history.
The ACLU supports equal rights for all. If the majority of the people
support oppressing a minority, the constitution forbids the government from
acting on that popular support. The ACLU defends the rights of everyone,
including the rights of minorities from tryanny of the majority.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 07:30:16 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:t7KdnfgApfp8QtTfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111806300.177122.132310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050323.html
ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America
The American Civil Liberties Union and others have systematically
pursued cases to the highest court in the land to weaken our national
identity, claiming "rights" of the few outweigh "We the people"
and 230 years of history.
The ACLU supports equal rights for all. If the majority of the people
support oppressing a minority, the constitution forbids the government
from
acting on that popular support. The ACLU defends the rights of everyone,
including the rights of minorities from tryanny of the majority.
Exactly. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the unpopular.
There is no need to protect the rights of the popular.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ac" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 08:34:42 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cAs2e.7454$zl.5586@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:t7KdnfgApfp8QtTfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111806300.177122.132310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050323.html
ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America
The American Civil Liberties Union and others have systematically
pursued cases to the highest court in the land to weaken our national
identity, claiming "rights" of the few outweigh "We the people"
and 230 years of history.
The ACLU supports equal rights for all. If the majority of the people
support oppressing a minority, the constitution forbids the government
from
acting on that popular support. The ACLU defends the rights of everyone,
including the rights of minorities from tryanny of the majority.
Exactly. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the unpopular.
There is no need to protect the rights of the popular.
I guess then, that as a white, straight, Christian male, if some some
organisation did something to infringe my civil liberties, I could never
expect any help from the ACLU . But wait a minute, as I am an Australian
living in the USA, I am part of a minority group. . There is hope for me
yet.
Still, if I am ever unfornuate enough to fall victim to some organisation's
evil tenticles, I wont hold my breath for help from the ACLU
AC
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 11:50:22 AM |
|
|
"Ac" <allmetric@knology.net> wrote in
news:dad71$424a63ee$45012caa$22683@KNOLOGY.NET:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cAs2e.7454$zl.5586@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:t7KdnfgApfp8QtTfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111806300.177122.132310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050323.html
ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America
The American Civil Liberties Union and others have systematically
pursued cases to the highest court in the land to weaken our
national identity, claiming "rights" of the few outweigh "We the
people" and 230 years of history.
The ACLU supports equal rights for all. If the majority of the people
support oppressing a minority, the constitution forbids the
government from
acting on that popular support. The ACLU defends the rights of
everyone, including the rights of minorities from tryanny of the
majority.
Exactly. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the
unpopular. There is no need to protect the rights of the popular.
I guess then, that as a white, straight, Christian male, if some some
organisation did something to infringe my civil liberties, I could
never expect any help from the ACLU . But wait a minute, as I am an
Australian living in the USA, I am part of a minority group. . There
is hope for me yet.
The Bill of Rights protects everyone victimized
by unconstitutional laws in the US, natives and foreigners
alike. The first amendment to even mention citizens is
the 14th, in 1866.
PS: Does the Australian constitional protect the rights
of foreigners?
Still, if I am ever unfornuate enough to fall victim to some
organisation's evil tenticles, I wont hold my breath for help from the
ACLU
It depends. The ACLU is a volunteer organization,
they are not obligated to represent anyone. Should you
need their help, just ask them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 02:38:38 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
The Bill of Rights protects everyone victimized
by unconstitutional laws in the US, natives and foreigners
alike.
According to the neo-cons, the Constitution -- which includes the Bill of
Rights -- applies only to *citizens.* That is the foundational rational for
the whole post 9/11 witch hunt, and why the only people who have had even the
appearance of a legal trial with regards to actual or planned terrorist
activities in the United States have all been citizens.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 03:15:52 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:424AB9EE.163A74D0@serv.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
The Bill of Rights protects everyone victimized
by unconstitutional laws in the US, natives and foreigners
alike.
According to the neo-cons, the Constitution -- which includes the Bill
of Rights -- applies only to *citizens.*
Actually it doesn't even apply to them, to hear
their defense of the Jose Padilla case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 03:18:45 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:424AB9EE.163A74D0@serv.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
The Bill of Rights protects everyone victimized
by unconstitutional laws in the US, natives and foreigners
alike.
According to the neo-cons, the Constitution -- which includes the Bill
of Rights -- applies only to *citizens.*
Actually it doesn't even apply to them, to hear
their defense of the Jose Padilla case.
Ah, I forgot about the "If you are merely accused of a criminal action, then
you lose all citizenship rights including those guaranteed by the
Constitution" argument.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 03:27:48 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:424AC355.11B81C7A@serv.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:424AB9EE.163A74D0@serv.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
The Bill of Rights protects everyone victimized
by unconstitutional laws in the US, natives and foreigners
alike.
According to the neo-cons, the Constitution -- which includes the
Bill of Rights -- applies only to *citizens.*
Actually it doesn't even apply to them, to hear
their defense of the Jose Padilla case.
Ah, I forgot about the "If you are merely accused of a criminal action,
then you lose all citizenship rights including those guaranteed by the
Constitution" argument.
When the KGB whisked people off to prison without
even charging them with a crime conservatives called
it tyrany. When Bush does it they call it patriotism.
Conservatives can be such frauds, you know?
Mitchell Holman
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
George Bush, while trying to shut down
a website doing a parody of him, 1999.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 05:25:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:27:48 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<ta2eneNo*Email@comcast.com> wrote:
When the KGB whisked people off to prison without
even charging them with a crime conservatives called
it tyrany.
Actually most of the time the Soviets at least set up Kangaroo courts
and pretend to some semblance of law. The GOP can't even be bothered
with pretending they care about law.
When Bush does it they call it patriotism.
Conservatives can be such frauds, you know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 06:52:48 PM |
|
|
retrogrouch sez:
"Actually most of the time the Soviets at least set up Kangaroo courts
and pretend to some semblance of law. The GOP can't even be bothered
with pretending they care about law..."
__________________________
The Soviets set up kangaroo courts, and the liberal Democrats improved on
that by just setting up pretend judges who simply make up the law as their
feelings dictate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 07:54:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:52:48 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
wrote:
retrogrouch sez:
"Actually most of the time the Soviets at least set up Kangaroo courts
and pretend to some semblance of law. The GOP can't even be bothered
with pretending they care about law..."
__________________________
The Soviets set up kangaroo courts, and the liberal Democrats improved on
that by just setting up pretend judges who simply make up the law as their
feelings dictate.
This is how the right justifies ignoring the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 08:48:09 PM |
|
|
<retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:52:48 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
wrote:
retrogrouch sez:
"Actually most of the time the Soviets at least set up Kangaroo courts
and pretend to some semblance of law. The GOP can't even be bothered
with pretending they care about law..."
The Soviets set up kangaroo courts, and the liberal Democrats improved on
that by just setting up pretend judges who simply make up the law as
their feelings dictate.
This is how the right justifies ignoring the law.
No, it's how the right *attempts* to justify ignoring the law. It only
works if the audience is ignorant.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 09:03:34 PM |
|
|
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gu8lvo.qkau3yhmv764N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
<retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote:
This is how the right justifies ignoring the law.
No, it's how the right *attempts* to justify ignoring the law. It only
works if the audience is ignorant.
Or shares their values.
It's wrong to dismiss NeoConservatism as simple ignorance, rather than the
intentional evil it is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 09:47:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:48:09 -0800, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
<retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:52:48 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
wrote:
retrogrouch sez:
"Actually most of the time the Soviets at least set up Kangaroo courts
and pretend to some semblance of law. The GOP can't even be bothered
with pretending they care about law..."
The Soviets set up kangaroo courts, and the liberal Democrats improved on
that by just setting up pretend judges who simply make up the law as
their feelings dictate.
This is how the right justifies ignoring the law.
No, it's how the right *attempts* to justify ignoring the law. It only
works if the audience is ignorant.
Point taken.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 07:01:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:52:48 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
wrote:
retrogrouch sez:
"Actually most of the time the Soviets at least set up Kangaroo courts
and pretend to some semblance of law. The GOP can't even be bothered
with pretending they care about law..."
__________________________
The Soviets set up kangaroo courts, and the liberal Democrats improved on
that by just setting up pretend judges who simply make up the law as their
feelings dictate.
Unlike the Republican judges, of course. It's only "judicial activism"
when it's what you don't like.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
31 Mar 2005 12:01:08 AM |
|
|
news:4AC2e.30889$191.20485@trnddc02 by "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>:
The Soviets set up kangaroo courts, and the liberal Democrats improved
on that by just setting up pretend judges who simply make up the law
as their feelings dictate.
Yeah! Just what was that bed-wetting liberal Tony Scalia thinking on the
Schiavo case
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"Nature as God's "reality" show - what a concept!"
--A t.o. poster who wishes to remain anonymous
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 05:19:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:50:22 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<ta2eneNo*Email@comcast.com> wrote:
Still, if I am ever unfornuate enough to fall victim to some
organisation's evil tenticles, I wont hold my breath for help from the
ACLU
It depends. The ACLU is a volunteer organization,
they are not obligated to represent anyone. Should you
need their help, just ask them.
They helped Ollie North and Rush Limbaugh. All of which is just too
inconvenient for conservatives to think about.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 07:47:38 PM |
|
|
Rubbish, they will only help you if they think they can publicity and
money out of your case, in one way or another.
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNo*Email@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96293B937724Dta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
: "Ac" <allmetric@knology.net> wrote in
: news:dad71$424a63ee$45012caa$22683@KNOLOGY.NET:
:
: >
: > "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:cAs2e.7454$zl.5586@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
: >> "Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in
message
: >> news:t7KdnfgApfp8QtTfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
: >> > "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
: >> > news:1111806300.177122.132310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: >> >>
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050323.html
: >> >>
: >> >> ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America
: >> >>
: >> >> The American Civil Liberties Union and others have
systematically
: >> >> pursued cases to the highest court in the land to weaken our
: >> >> national identity, claiming "rights" of the few outweigh "We the
: >> >> people" and 230 years of history.
: >> >
: >> > The ACLU supports equal rights for all. If the majority of the
people
: >> > support oppressing a minority, the constitution forbids the
: >> > government from
: >> > acting on that popular support. The ACLU defends the rights of
: >> > everyone, including the rights of minorities from tryanny of the
: >> > majority.
: >>
: >> Exactly. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the
: >> unpopular. There is no need to protect the rights of the popular.
: >>
: >>
: >
: > I guess then, that as a white, straight, Christian male, if some
some
: > organisation did something to infringe my civil liberties, I could
: > never expect any help from the ACLU . But wait a minute, as I am an
: > Australian living in the USA, I am part of a minority group. .
There
: > is hope for me yet.
:
:
: The Bill of Rights protects everyone victimized
: by unconstitutional laws in the US, natives and foreigners
: alike. The first amendment to even mention citizens is
: the 14th, in 1866.
:
: PS: Does the Australian constitional protect the rights
: of foreigners?
:
:
: >
: > Still, if I am ever unfornuate enough to fall victim to some
: > organisation's evil tenticles, I wont hold my breath for help from
the
: > ACLU
: >
:
: It depends. The ACLU is a volunteer organization,
: they are not obligated to represent anyone. Should you
: need their help, just ask them.
:
:
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 10:47:12 PM |
|
|
"Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in news:2hD2e.6042
$wo1.4366@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
Rubbish, they will only help you if they think they can publicity and
money out of your case, in one way or another.
Funny that the NRA never jumps in to help
someone accused of violating a law they claim
is "unconstitutional". Where were they when
Ollie needed them?
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNo*Email@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96293B937724Dta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
: "Ac" <allmetric@knology.net> wrote in
: news:dad71$424a63ee$45012caa$22683@KNOLOGY.NET:
:
: >
: > "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:cAs2e.7454$zl.5586@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
: >> "Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in
message
: >> news:t7KdnfgApfp8QtTfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
: >> > "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
: >> > news:1111806300.177122.132310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: >> >>
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050323.html
: >> >>
: >> >> ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America
: >> >>
: >> >> The American Civil Liberties Union and others have
systematically
: >> >> pursued cases to the highest court in the land to weaken our
: >> >> national identity, claiming "rights" of the few outweigh "We the
: >> >> people" and 230 years of history.
: >> >
: >> > The ACLU supports equal rights for all. If the majority of the
people
: >> > support oppressing a minority, the constitution forbids the
: >> > government from
: >> > acting on that popular support. The ACLU defends the rights of
: >> > everyone, including the rights of minorities from tryanny of the
: >> > majority.
: >>
: >> Exactly. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the
: >> unpopular. There is no need to protect the rights of the popular.
: >>
: >>
: >
: > I guess then, that as a white, straight, Christian male, if some
some
: > organisation did something to infringe my civil liberties, I could
: > never expect any help from the ACLU . But wait a minute, as I am an
: > Australian living in the USA, I am part of a minority group. .
There
: > is hope for me yet.
:
:
: The Bill of Rights protects everyone victimized
: by unconstitutional laws in the US, natives and foreigners
: alike. The first amendment to even mention citizens is
: the 14th, in 1866.
:
: PS: Does the Australian constitional protect the rights
: of foreigners?
:
:
: >
: > Still, if I am ever unfornuate enough to fall victim to some
: > organisation's evil tenticles, I wont hold my breath for help from
the
: > ACLU
: >
:
: It depends. The ACLU is a volunteer organization,
: they are not obligated to represent anyone. Should you
: need their help, just ask them.
:
:
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 08:48:10 PM |
|
|
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
Rubbish, [the ACLU] will only help you if they think they can publicity
and money out of your case, in one way or another.
You refer, of course, to the time they defended the Neo-Nazis' right to
march through Skokie, a predominately Jewish neighborhood.
<http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html>
[..]
The debate was clear-cut: American Nazis claimed the right of free
speech while their Jewish "targets" claimed the right to live without
intimidation. The town, arguing that the march would assault the
sensibilities of its citizens and spark violence, managed to win a
court injunction against the marchers. In response, the American Civil
Liberties Union took the case and successfully defended the Nazis'
right to free speech.
Skokie had all the elements of a difficult case: a clash of absolutes,
prior restraint of speech, and heated public sentiment. In recreating
it, Strum presents a detailed account and analysis of the legal
proceedings as well as finely delineated portraits of the protagonists:
Frank Collin, National Socialist Party of America leader and the son of
a Jewish Holocaust survivor; Skokie community leader Sol Goldstein, a
Holocaust survivor who planned a counterdemonstration against the Nazis;
Skokie mayor Albert Smith, who wanted only to protect his townspeople;
and ACLU attorney David Goldberger, caught in the ironic position of
being a Jew defending the rights of Nazis against fellow Jews. While
the ACLU did win the case, it was a costly victory--30,000 of its
members left the organization. And in the end, ironically, the Nazis
never did march in Skokie.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 09:07:52 PM |
|
|
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gu8lzt.1rlt6n71oapmt1N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
Rubbish, [the ACLU] will only help you if they think they can publicity
and money out of your case, in one way or another.
You refer, of course, to the time they defended the Neo-Nazis' right to
march through Skokie, a predominately Jewish neighborhood.
Yes, that was very well publicized.
My problem w/them is their stupidity.
I once wrote them to ask what *I* could do about something I felt was
infringing on my rights, & all I got back was a letter saying "We can't take
your case."
Idiots.
Susan
<http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html>
[..]
The debate was clear-cut: American Nazis claimed the right of free
speech while their Jewish "targets" claimed the right to live without
intimidation. The town, arguing that the march would assault the
sensibilities of its citizens and spark violence, managed to win a
court injunction against the marchers. In response, the American Civil
Liberties Union took the case and successfully defended the Nazis'
right to free speech.
Skokie had all the elements of a difficult case: a clash of absolutes,
prior restraint of speech, and heated public sentiment. In recreating
it, Strum presents a detailed account and analysis of the legal
proceedings as well as finely delineated portraits of the protagonists:
Frank Collin, National Socialist Party of America leader and the son of
a Jewish Holocaust survivor; Skokie community leader Sol Goldstein, a
Holocaust survivor who planned a counterdemonstration against the Nazis;
Skokie mayor Albert Smith, who wanted only to protect his townspeople;
and ACLU attorney David Goldberger, caught in the ironic position of
being a Jew defending the rights of Nazis against fellow Jews. While
the ACLU did win the case, it was a costly victory--30,000 of its
members left the organization. And in the end, ironically, the Nazis
never did march in Skokie.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 09:57:31 PM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IyE2e.30520$uw6.22099@trnddc06...
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
My problem w/them is their stupidity.
I once wrote them to ask what *I* could do about something I felt was
infringing on my rights, & all I got back was a letter saying "We can't
take your case."
Idiots.
If they tried to take on baseless cases, they wouldn't have the resoruces to
take on the valid ones.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 10:50:48 PM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <usenet@kaufman.net> wrote in
news:fhF2e.5538$c76.1255@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IyE2e.30520$uw6.22099@trnddc06...
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
My problem w/them is their stupidity.
I once wrote them to ask what *I* could do about something I felt was
infringing on my rights, & all I got back was a letter saying "We can't
take your case."
Idiots.
If they tried to take on baseless cases, they wouldn't have the
resoruces to take on the valid ones.
.
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out
from blasting the "culture of entitlement" to claim he
is entitled to have free ACLU representation whenever he
wants it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
31 Mar 2005 06:47:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:07:52 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gu8lzt.1rlt6n71oapmt1N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
Rubbish, [the ACLU] will only help you if they think they can publicity
and money out of your case, in one way or another.
You refer, of course, to the time they defended the Neo-Nazis' right to
march through Skokie, a predominately Jewish neighborhood.
Yes, that was very well publicized.
My problem w/them is their stupidity.
I once wrote them to ask what *I* could do about something I felt was
infringing on my rights, & all I got back was a letter saying "We can't take
your case."
Idiots.
They offer a legal service. If they gave you any kind of advice at
all, they would be taking your case and be assuming a certain
responsibility. Obviously they cannot take every case that comes
along.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
31 Mar 2005 07:51:05 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:j16n411ar2f7fmtonkshjidntbqbeudb1t@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:07:52 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gu8lzt.1rlt6n71oapmt1N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
Rubbish, [the ACLU] will only help you if they think they can publicity
and money out of your case, in one way or another.
You refer, of course, to the time they defended the Neo-Nazis' right to
march through Skokie, a predominately Jewish neighborhood.
Yes, that was very well publicized.
My problem w/them is their stupidity.
I once wrote them to ask what *I* could do about something I felt was
infringing on my rights, & all I got back was a letter saying "We can't
take
your case."
Idiots.
They offer a legal service. If they gave you any kind of advice at
all, they would be taking your case and be assuming a certain
responsibility.
But they *did*; they told me what constituted illegality & what didn't.
Obviously they cannot take every case that comes
along.
I didn't want them to.
I wanted to know what I could do so as not to bother them with it.
Susan
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
01 Apr 2005 01:16:03 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JwY2e.31660$191.29206@trnddc02...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
Obviously they cannot take every case that comes
along.
I didn't want them to.
I wanted to know what I could do so as not to bother them with it.
You called and asked for legal counsel - so you wouldn't bother them with
requests for legal counsel?
That's the kind of irrational thinking that will make any unpaid lawyer
flee.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
01 Apr 2005 07:11:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:51:05 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:j16n411ar2f7fmtonkshjidntbqbeudb1t@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:07:52 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
snip
They offer a legal service. If they gave you any kind of advice at
all, they would be taking your case and be assuming a certain
responsibility.
But they *did*; they told me what constituted illegality & what didn't.
Obviously they cannot take every case that comes
along.
I didn't want them to.
I wanted to know what I could do so as not to bother them with it.
And they did not think they were in a position to do so.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
01 Apr 2005 08:37:48 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:im6r41tfb2mb8ocek3t8bhg562q5pdhgst@4ax.com...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:51:05 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:j16n411ar2f7fmtonkshjidntbqbeudb1t@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:07:52 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
snip
They offer a legal service. If they gave you any kind of advice at
all, they would be taking your case and be assuming a certain
responsibility.
But they *did*; they told me what constituted illegality & what didn't.
Obviously they cannot take every case that comes
along.
I didn't want them to.
I wanted to know what I could do so as not to bother them with it.
And they did not think they were in a position to do so.
So why didn't they just say that rather than tell me they couldn;t do what I
didn;t ask them to do? *That's* what I mean by *stupid*.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 09:49:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:07:52 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gu8lzt.1rlt6n71oapmt1N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
Rubbish, [the ACLU] will only help you if they think they can publicity
and money out of your case, in one way or another.
You refer, of course, to the time they defended the Neo-Nazis' right to
march through Skokie, a predominately Jewish neighborhood.
Yes, that was very well publicized.
My problem w/them is their stupidity.
I once wrote them to ask what *I* could do about something I felt was
infringing on my rights, & all I got back was a letter saying "We can't take
your case."
Idiots.
Susan
Do you ask your doctor for free medical advice too?
A lawyer is prohibited from giving you advice if he doesn't represent
you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU vs. the Heart and Soul of America |
30 Mar 2005 10:18:28 PM |
|
|
<retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hl7m41190bviahdj5u7q25tbqh6tb2aggj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:07:52 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gu8lzt.1rlt6n71oapmt1N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
Rubbish, [the ACLU] will only help you if they think they can publicity
and money out of your case, in one way or another.
You refer, of course, to the time they defended the Neo-Nazis' right to
march through Skokie, a predominately Jewish neighborhood.
Yes, that was very well publicized.
My problem w/them is their stupidity.
I once wrote them to ask what *I* could do about something I felt was
infringing on my rights, & all I got back was a letter saying "We can't
take
your case."
Idiots.
Susan
Do you ask your doctor for free medical advice too?
A lawyer is prohibited from giving you advice if he doesn't represent
you.
Which is not what they said.
But, if what you say is true, then they are doubly stupid, because the
person who wrote me back *did* discuss the legality of what *s/he* thought
the situation was.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
