Court slaps down ACLU

[eclectics]

But there really is a very good reason for suggesting an amendment for this - or especially for abortion (either for or against - doesn't really matter). If the country is forced to go through the "great debate" necessary for 3/4 of the states to either agree or disagree with an amendment, then the issue (whatever it is) is really well and truly settled and the argument is over. This piecemeal through referendums or the courts just keeps issues alive for future elections and partisan fund raising - solving nothing.

Then why bother with a supreme court at all?

 

[rigs32]

I think idiotic court cases could be a cross party thing

I agree. Part of the problem is that we have journalists who know very little about the court system reporting on legal issues. While I may find Court TV cheesy at times, they actually do a decent job of explaining the procedure and the "why"s behind what happened in a case.

As my typical example, most people have no idea what really happened in the McDonald's coffee case. And many people are afraid of or distrustful of statistics. Yes, numbers can be reported various ways, but of you look at the raw data concerning lawsuits, it's not out of control. In fact, many people who had a small amount of damages are over compensated to save the time, effort, and money of a trial. But people with large damages are often under compensated because juries don't like to award maintenance. So, even if I am permanantely disabled because of the event, I may not recover enough to live on because that amount in a lump sum seems too much for juries. But I might get $5k when my real damages were only $2k. I do not have references to the articles/studies I read, but I can dig out my Torts materials if you really want to know.

 

[Galahad]

Then why bother with a supreme court at all?

Interesting suggestion. You know, the constitution does not declare that the Supreme court shall decide what is constitutional.

The constitution was set up with the mechanism to be amended for this very reason. We are not designed to have governance by the courts.

 

[JennyMominRI]

As my typical example, most people have no idea what really happened in the McDonald's coffee case. .

I do ,I do,I know this one.Pick me,Pick me!

 

[Judge Smails]

Interesting suggestion. You know, the constitution does not declare that the Supreme court shall decide what is constitutional.

The constitution was set up with the mechanism to be amended for this very reason. We are not designed to have governance by the courts.

The Constitution does not declare that the Supreme Court shall decide Presidential elections either.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Yes, adding an amendment is such a big deal, I'm sure the Presidents that wanted one agonized long and hard over it, and God forbid, never thought of pushing one forward for a purely personal reason. Well, most Presidents anyway .

The president can push, pull, cajole, bully all he wants, but as the president he has no more voting strength than the ordinary citizen; it's the legislative branch that passes the proposed amendments to be voted on by the state citizenry.

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."

Then why bother with a supreme court at all?

To rise above popular sentimentalities...think slavery.

As my typical example, most people have no idea what really happened in the McDonald's coffee case. And many people are afraid of or distrustful of statistics. Yes, numbers can be reported various ways, but of you look at the raw data concerning lawsuits, it's not out of control. In fact, many people who had a small amount of damages are over compensated to save the time, effort, and money of a trial. But people with large damages are often under compensated because juries don't like to award maintenance. So, even if I am permanantely disabled because of the event, I may not recover enough to live on because that amount in a lump sum seems too much for juries. But I might get $5k when my real damages were only $2k. I do not have references to the articles/studies I read, but I can dig out my Torts materials if you really want to know.

Even from an insurance perspective, rigs is right, claims covering damages and awards have decreased on both an absolute and percentage basis from prior years. While the large awards are often trumpeted in the media, they are getting fewer each year and the average award is shrinking. Part of this is that juries don't see big business as having bottomless pockets anymore as more and more of the large "stable" companies are declaring bankruptcy. Right now, most co's have no qualms about declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying fees imposed by the courts while continuing to operate.

You know, the constitution does not declare that the Supreme court shall decide what is constitutional.

You're right, it can only declare what is unconstitutional. The difference?

I do ,I do,I know this one.Pick me,Pick me!

You're picked...enlighten us!

-R

 

[Galahad]

The Constitution does not declare that the Supreme Court shall decide Presidential elections either.

True. It has never done so.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I support our Founding Fathers who penned out a distinct separation of Church and State. If I want to say a prayer, or hear the Ten Commandments, I go to church. It's too bad the Federal Government wants to be in my bedroom and every place else these days.

Actually, they didn't "pen out" any distinction. The intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was specifically to LIMIT what Congress and the then newly formed federal government could do. The framers of the Constitution desired to preserve the idea of self-government of the individual STATES above that of a centralized federal government because this is what they fought the war over. The idea of an all-powerful federal gov't. was abhorrent to them.

Read the 1st Amendment again and you will find 2 things missing: (1) any concept of the separation of church and state; (2) any restriction on what any individual STATE is allowed to do. Note that the amendment in question specifically states that Congress shall make no law. The founding fathers were very clear in their language and their intent. If they meant for this restriction to apply to the individual states as well, they would have said so.

Through our history we have read into the Constitution many things that are not there. Separation of church and state is just one of them.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

That's how the system is setup. If an amendment that banned gay marriage was ratified by 3/4 of the states, California and Taxechuesettes would just have to "get over it".

My argument is that this was not what the framers intended. It is, however, what we have allowed the Constitution to become. Over the centuries, we the people have forgotten what was fought for and have slowly relinquished our rights to allow the creation of a federal gov't. that is too big, too strong and given too exclusive power to interpret the Constitution - usually in it's own favor.

 

[Galahad]

My argument is that this was not what the framers intended. It is, however, what we have allowed the Constitution to become.

Mostly through the 14th amendment.

 

[Laurajean1014]

Good job. And I hope the ACLU received my Christmas Card!

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Mostly through the 14th amendment.

Good point. Another example of how we the people have allowed too much to be read into something. Somewhere along the line Thomas Jefferson's "baby", the 10th Amendment, has gotten lost in the shuffle.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I do not agree with a lot of what the ACLU does, but I do believe it is a complete mischaracterization to paint them as a completely anti-religion and especially anti-Christian organization. There are numerous examples of the ACLU fighting to preserve religious liberty, including fighting with one of their most vocal opponents, Jerry Falwell! Too often the ACLU is trashed (and I am admittedly too ready to listen to and believe too much of this trash talk that comes primarily from conservative sources) because of disagreements over the cases they accept.

I don't know how balanced their caseload really is, but there is ample evidence to show that they have fought in the past on the side of issues near and dear to the hearts of conservatives and Christians alike.

I read an assessment of the ACLU somewhere that I tended to agree with. The ACLU is not anti-Christian in its intentions, but that tends to become the effect they ultimately achieve.

 

[Chuck S]

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.

 

[Judge Smails]

I don't know how balanced their caseload really is, but there is ample evidence to show that they have fought in the past on the side of issues near and dear to the hearts of conservatives and Christians alike.

The ACLU is assisting Rush.

 

[Charade]

The ACLU is assisting Rush.

Imagine that.

 

[va32h]

I don't know how balanced their caseload really is, but there is ample evidence to show that they have fought in the past on the side of issues near and dear to the hearts of conservatives and Christians alike.

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?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

You better brush up on your Boy Scout manual. The manual allows boys to worship any god - as long as they worship a deity. Even they realize that there are multiple religions that their boys worship.

Fine with me. You are misreading my posts.

 

[nwdisgal]

Fine with me. You are misreading my posts.

No harm. No foul. The internet always brings the risk of that.

 

[Disney Doll]

I am curious to hear from people who obviously feel that this mission statement is invalid. In other words, why do people oppose an organization whose primary function is to uphold the Constitution of the United States without regard to politics?

This sounds eerily similar to a line in the speech given by Michael Douglas playing the President in the movie "The American President".

I believe that the ACLU, like many other organizations, is in business to further their own agenda.

If you think anyone in the ACLU acts without regard to politics, I believe you are wrong. Everyone involved in governmental agencies or governmental watchdog agencies bases their action on politics.

Sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad...

In this case, I think they could find bigger fish to fry.