Court slaps down ACLU

[Disney Doll]

Because most of these threads go down a road like this eventually, I'll bite.

Many people who advocate for limits on lawsuits are conservative and identify as republican. So, should terri schiavo's parents have paid for all the appeals they filed? (as more conservatives identified with the parents)

Our court system is set up such that a court can refuse to hear a case if it is improper.

I would consider my "leaning" to be more conservative than liberal and I absolutely think that Terri Schiavo's parents should pay for the amount of time and money that was spent on their ridiculous appeals. That was a conservatives' abuse of the courts, and as disruptive, expensive and annoying as the liberals' abuse of the courts.

I don't think either end of the spectrum has the market cornered on their ability to abuse the court system as a means to achieve their own end.

 

[Alice's Mom]

Lord Fantasius, I know you picked Jenny, but I know the McDonalds case too!!

The passenger of a car attempting to put sugar and cream in her coffee while it was sitting between her legs did have it spill all over her inner thighs...she ended up in the hospital for 8 days with 3rd degree burns...she tried to settle a $20,000 claim, but McDonalds refused, she went to court where it was revealed that McDonalds had hundreds of claims similar to hers and that their coffee was served at about 40-45 degrees hotter than coffee is normally served at...she won her case and was awarded (had to look exact numbers up) $160,000 for compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages...the punitive was later reduced $480,000...McDonalds has since lowered there coffee temparatures.

As far as the OP, no reason to argue or put forth discussion, nothing will ever change his mind and the only thing I will ever agree with him is Epcot does indeed Rock! That's okay though, we each are lucky enough to live in the US to think the way we do.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Lord Fantasius, I know you picked Jenny, but I know the McDonalds case too!!

The passenger of a car attempting to put sugar and cream in her coffee while it was sitting between her legs did have it spill all over her inner thighs...she ended up in the hospital for 8 days with 3rd degree burns...she tried to settle a $20,000 claim, but McDonalds refused, she went to court where it was revealed that McDonalds had hundreds of claims similar to hers and that their coffee was served at about 40-45 degrees hotter than coffee is normally served at...she won her case and was awarded (had to look exact numbers up) $160,000 for compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages...the punitive was later reduced $480,000...McDonalds has since lowered there coffee temparatures.

As far as the OP, no reason to argue or put forth discussion, nothing will ever change his mind and the only thing I will ever agree with him is Epcot does indeed Rock! That's okay though, we each are lucky enough to live in the US to think the way we do.

To add to this,McDonalds had recieved several legal warnings about te temp of their coffee..They simply refused to change it even after others were burned

 

[Alice's Mom]

To add to this,McDonalds had recieved several legal warnings about te temp of their coffee..They simply refused to change it even after others were burned

Sorry I stole your thunder...

 

[rigs32]

And the woman injured was only asking McDonalds to reimburse for the medical expenses (possibly her lost wages, but I'm not sure). The JURY decided to award the punative damages. They originally wanted to tack on the value of coffee sales at McDs for a week, but took it down to 1-2 days. Very few people know, as mentioned, that the judge tossed most of the punative damages.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Sorry I stole your thunder...

Not at all..My arm is hurting pretty badly today and I didn' feel like typing it all out.I'm glad you did

 

[Tigger_Magic]

It may have not been the original intention for there to be a strong federal gov't, and to have more individual state powers. But does anyone think the US could be what it is today if it continued with individual state power and a weak federal gov't? It would be similar to the Arab nations you see today. A bunch of little, basically unrespected powerless countries with a loose confederation, having no influence and even fewer friends in the global community. States would be making individual treaties with stronger foreign nations, slavery could still be an issue, nationwide "civil rights" would be a joke. Religious laws would vary from state to state. Free travel and trade between states would be difficult, at best.

And we gave up all that for what we have today? Doesn't seem like a very wise trade-off to me.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Well, maybe "issues near and dear to the hearts of conservatives and Christians alike" are at odds with the Constitution, and this is why the ACLU does not support them.

What specific cases have been brought to the ACLU by conservative/Christian groups, only to have the ACLU refuse to represent them?

I don't know and I'm not sure it's relevant. As Disney Doll said, like any other organization the ACLU has its own agenda to pursue and while their mission statement may sound altruistic in intent, the end result of some of their work can lead some to question that. I wonder how many cases liberal/nonChristian groups bring only to have the ACLU refuse to represent them. The knife cuts both ways. My original point was to suggest that contrary to how some would paint the organization, it does not appear to be in absolute relentless pursuit to eradicate religion or institute "freedom from religion" in America.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

As far as the OP, no reason to argue or put forth discussion, nothing will ever change his mind and the only thing I will ever agree with him is Epcot does indeed Rock! That's okay though, we each are lucky enough to live in the US to think the way we do.

Amen. Epcot does rock and we are lucky to live in the USA!

 

[Puffy2]

What specific cases have been brought to the ACLU by conservative/Christian groups, only to have the ACLU refuse to represent them?

Have no idea what they have refused to take up, but I do know that they were assisting with the case where the elementary school child wanted to sing a Christain song at an after school hours talent show that took place on school grounds.

The ACLU SUPPORTED the girl's right to sing whatever song she wanted.

The ACLU fights to protect the Constitutional rights of ALL Americans. They are not the villians here - those who attempt to take our rights as Americans away are the villians and it's happening more and more each and every day.

God Bless the ACLU!

 

[Puffy2]

And speaking of 10 Commandment fights, I live near a town that insisted on hanging the 10 Commandments in their courthouse (all by itself, not as a collection with other works). A Christian group said they would finance the fight in court. Well, they LOST their court battle and the Christain group only coughed up part of the money to pay for the court costs...claiming that the city is reponsible for the rest - read that , THE TAX PAYERS are responsible for the rest!

On an interesting note, when a college student approached the city council of that city to post an additional poster with other religious text displayed, he was turned down. That is a clear case of a government agency choosing one religion over another.

This whole 10 commandments thing could be solved if they just posted one portion of religious texts from ALL known religions in the same courthouse area. That wouldn't violate the Constitution. But, the question remains, would those who insist that the government post their 10 Commandments be happy with it hanging next to exerpts from the Torah, Koran, writings from Hindism, Buddhism, and other religions?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

The ACLU fights to protect the Constitutional rights of ALL Americans. They are not the villians here - those who attempt to take our rights as Americans away are the villians and it's happening more and more each and every day.

God Bless the ACLU!

Well, our merciful God is generous with His blessings. Whatever small actions the ACLU does that line up with His Word will be blessed.

What villians are trying to take our rights away more and more each day??

 

[Judge Smails]

Republicans.

 

[sodaseller]

I don't believe there is a "need" to post the 10 Commandments in a public place. Personally, I don't support monuments, plaques, displays, etc. of the 10 Commandments in public buildings, especially courts. However, I do believe that this is an issue that should be addressed & decided by each individual state, not by the federal gov't. or federal judiciary. If the KY Supreme Court says it's ok, that's fine with me. Each state should be able to decide this on its own.

So you adopt Justice Thomas's view that the Establishment Clause was not incorporated through the 14th Am? I must say I didn't think that anyone else that was not an Opus theocrat could ever adopt such reasoning. I find it the most bizaarely wrong legal argument I have ever seen in a USSC opinion

 

[sodaseller]

Just expressing an opinion. I don't believe that the Constitution grants the federal government the right to overrule the states; the federal gov't. and especially the federal judiciary was founded to be severely restricted in its powers with most of the power to govern being reserved to individual states. The fact that this ideal was undermined by that so-called secular saint President Lincoln and subsequently relinquished by the states after the (un)Civil War doesn't erase what the founding fathers intended.

I realize you're attempting a provocation in ignorance, but you might want to read a bit first. No doubt the balance of power between the states and the federal government is now more titled towards the feds. But that isn't due to any nefarious judicial activism, it's due to the postWar Amendements, mainly the 14th. You've been reading some of the misleading agitprop. See if we detect a difference in tone

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now the 14th

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.





Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 15th

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Any argument as to the allocation of power power between the states and the federal goverment within the Constitution based upon the intent in 1789 is dishonestly incomplete

 

[sodaseller]

As I stated, our founding fathers penned separation of Church and State. End of FF discussion.


That may be the popular opinion, but it's surprisingly wrong. The founding fathers actually penned that the government shall not establish a religion...that is a far cry from both the letter and spirit of the law, and a purposefully overlooked fact used by the ACLU to advance its "mission."

Disagree. I think a strong textual argument is there. Look at the structure of the First Am - the order of probitions, and the fact that religion has two mentions (Actually three if you get to ART VI.

All other isms are permissible - just not religious ones. Free Exercise alone owuld be enough to parallel the other prohibitions - speech, petition, etc. Only religion got the extra mention. Plus the religious test clause - in every other manner, the text is conspicously silent on qualifications, leaving that to the political process. Only one qualification was prohibited.

Think you arguments are too simplistic by far

Quote:
Then why bother with a supreme court at all?


To rise above popular sentimentalities...think slavery.

Not sure what you're saying here, but the USSC was hardly check on slavery - Roger Taney

 

[ChrisnSteph]

the ACLU can kiss my Smurf.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Any argument as to the allocation of power power between the states and the federal goverment within the Constitution based upon the intent in 1789 is dishonestly incomplete

There you go again with that tired, worn out "dishonesty" tirade. You really do need to get some new material.

 

[richiebaseball]

Ah no I was citing a famous case that most folks are familiar with regarding the ACLU. I'll thank you in advance for the forthcoming apology.

It was only my opinion. Right or wrong, no apology coming.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Republicans.

These are so-called villians that our trying to take our rights away every day??

Gosh, thank goodness we have the ACLU to save us.