Does the ACLU still deserve our support?

[cali]

Yes, they've done outstanding work over the years, but they supported Citizen's United with an amicus brief, against the FEC. It's my understanding that they hoped for a narrower ruling, but nonetheless they did file the brief.

[Turbineguy]

1. Unintended consequences.

But the SC Decision screws conservatives too. In our case we are screwed. In their case, they have been betrayed.

[Orsino]

2. I don't think they pushed for anything like the broad ruling that resulted.

But this ruling has the potential to undo everything they have tried to do.

[cali]

4. right. that's how I understand it.

[CTyankee]

10. The ACLU has long taken this stand regarding political speech and corporations.

Maybe not quite so libertarian but certainly the organization has libertarians in their ranks. THis is nothing new...

[NJmaverick]

3. Absolutely not, they were part of the destruction of our civil liberties

and Democracy. I can never forgive them for the stand they took, which was contrary to the civil liberties we all hold dear

[HughMoran]

16. I disagree

They do FAR more good than bad - and if not the ACLU protecting our civil liberties, then who? Perhaps they can (knowing the backlash from this decision) provide support on how to put forth a law that is likely to pass the 'Constitutional' test even with the right-wing trolls on the court. I don't believe that their amicus brief significantly changed the outcome of this case.

[blondeatlast]

20. That's a good point, and if they show some serious inclination to

create such a bill, then they can have my support again.

I'd like to think that their feelings were mixed on this--but I don't see much evidence yet.

[HughMoran]

31. It's a bit more complicated that it seems at first blush too

Read my post about their amicus brief here -> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7543404

[NJmaverick]

24. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling was the most destructive ruling ever handed out

in our nation's history. For the ACLU to be on the wrong side of that one, just dwarfs everything up to this point.

[HughMoran]

30. Hey, check out my post on the ACLU brief

Perhaps this information will alter your perspective on this somewhat http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7543404

[Vinnie From Indy]

21. The irony of your statement is deserving of some award somewhere

IN fact, I would offer that it will be the most ironic statement made today on DU. Cheers!

[NJmaverick]

23. You have no clue do you? You have no idea just how devestating and destructive

yesterday's ruling was to our political process. You will soon learn.... trust me you will still learn

[Luminous Animal]

35. What was their stand?

[NJmaverick]

39. They sided with the idea that corporations were people

and that $$$$ is speech

[HughMoran]

41. Did they?

Did you read the brief that I linked you to?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7543404

[NJmaverick]

46. I read it and it sure sounded like that's what they did

[Luminous Animal]

48. Perhaps you should read it again.

And give us a synopsis of their argument.

[NJmaverick]

51. Never mind, I read what the ACLU had to say and they were wrong

wrong on a huge issue.

[Luminous Animal]

52. The ACLU did NOT advocate for a broad ruling. SCOTUS overreached.

The ACLU's brief specifically targeted one section of McCain-Feingold. You can make an argument why they were wrong on that issue and that issue alone, or you can pretend that they support this ruling.

[NJmaverick]

53. The part they targetted was what the right wing 5 pinned their new laws on

[Luminous Animal]

55. Nope. They advocated for a narrow ruling on the one provision

and that one provision, only. SCOTUS chose the scorched earth path.

[NJmaverick]

62. While we may disagree on the ACLU's opinion can we at least agree

to call what happened the rulling by the right wing 5 rather than a SCOTUS?

[HughMoran]

57. Read it again

They simply argued that the wording in a modified portion of a "electioneering communications" law was still unconstitutional. The remedy would have been to simply re-write that particular law, but the court overturned the previous Austin ruling that the ACLU did not make an argument for or against.

[PVnRT]

5. Yes, but they have some explaining and penance to do

[Luminous Animal]

36. There is a link to their brief here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7543404

They explained their support for a narrow ruling quite clearly.

[GodlessBiker]

6. I'll support them for the 90% of the work they do that I agree with.

[CTyankee]

8. Perhaps it is time for a more progressive organization or organizations to take up

those causes and let the ACLU wither on the vine. That is the case on many other issues such as gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights, to name just a few. The ACLU may simply be superfluous and other rights organizations can step in and fight for civil liberties. The ACLU doesn't have a monopoly on this "brand."

[GodlessBiker]

17. I agree. No organization should have a monopoly on the progressive brand.

Certainly, with gay rights, Lambda Legal is an equal player.

[The_Commonist]

7. It's not the first time they've done something dumb.

Won't be the last.

For example, they helped out the Westboro Baptist church when there was legislation to keep them from picketing soldier's funerals with their God Hates Fags signs. They won. They've also helped out NAMBLA.

Generally, they're pretty consistent in defending unpopular speech, and they were trying to be consistent here. I think they missed the mark.

[Coventina]

9. They are absolutists, I am not. This is why I have never been

a big supporter of theirs.

This particular circumstance does not change how I feel about them, one way or the other. They acted exactly how I expected them to act.

Do they do what I consider to be good work? Absolutely.
Do they do what I consider to be reprehensible work? Yes indeed.

I think each person needs to come to their own conclusion about the ACLU approach. There is no right or wrong conclusion, IMO, because, once again, I am not an absolutist.

[blondeatlast]

11. Sums up my feelings nicely. I don't think democracy and abolutism mix well anyway. nt

[treestar]

60. If there is anything to be an absolutist about, it is the First Amendment

[blondeatlast]

12. Other, for none of the reasons stated. Absolutism and democracy don't

mix, IMHO.

The NRA is another example (even if it will make some DUers uncomfortable).

[HughMoran]

13. I just re-upped the day before yesterday. I don't regret that even though they were wrong on this

critical issue.

It would be like saying I don't support Obama because I disagree with him on one major issue.

They do FAR more good than bad and I can't believe that they felt good about this choice, but apparently they felt that the Constitution was not supportive of current law (don't ask me, I'm not an expert.) Anyway, we need to change the Constitution, or pass other laws that will pass the Constitutional test. I don't feel good saying this, it's just what we must do now - there is no other choice.

[midnight]

14. I have not heard of this group before.

David N. Bossie is the president of Citizens United and Citizens United Productions

Formerly, Bossie served as chief investigator for the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. During Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, he led investigations ranging from the Whitewater land deal to the transfer of dual-use technology to China and to foreign fundraising in the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign.

As president of Citizens United Productions, Bossie has produced 11 documentaries since 2004, including Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous With Destiny hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich, Broken Promises: The United Nations at 60 with Ron Silver, and Perfect Valor, a documentary narrated by Senator Fred Thompson about the service and sacrifices of our troops in Iraq.

Born in Boston, Bossie attended the University of Maryland. He has proudly served for the last 19 years as a volunteer firefighter in Montgomery County, Maryland, where he resides with his wife, Susan, and their three children: Isabella, Griffin and Lily Campbell.

[Coventina]

15. He sounds like a real peach.

:puke:

[verges]

18. Their job is to defend the Constitution.

Not to defend the idealogical left. Yes, sometimes they take unpopular cases that I personally disagree with. That's what they are supposed to do. RWers have Constitutional rights as well; and sometimes those rights can get trampled on. I think they truly missed on this however. It is ironic that the right recieved the biggest victory of this century at the hands of an organization they thoroughly detest!

[NJmaverick]

25. They didn't defend the constitution, in this case they did the exact opposite

[verges]

27. I agree. But....

they and the SCOTUS saw it differently.

I think it was Voltaire that said something along the lines of: "I may not agree with what you say; but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That is, I think, the essence of what the ACLU is about. And, I'm glad they are there. That said, I strongly (and that word is entirely inadequate) disagree with yesterday's ruling. I hope there are solutions to undo the damage to be found.

[NJmaverick]

29. The 5 right wing liberty hating justices didn't see it that way

the other 4 judges didn't see it that way.

[Maru Kitteh]

61. Their job is to stand for CIVIL liberties, not Corporate liberties and they've jumped the shark.

American Corporate Liberties Union.

Fuggem.

[HughMoran]

63. Except that they didn't make an argument for corporate liberties

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7543404

[ima_sinnic]

19. with so many organizagtions competing for my donations and support, they're not on my list

I really don't give a rat's ass about the poor widdle corporations' "freedom of speech."
I have better ways to spend my limited charitable contribution money than on Fred Phelps' "right" to wound the already grieving and incite hatred.
their priorities and mine are simply different.
if they really care about "civil liberties," they could work on ending corporate personhood instead of further embedding it into our failed "democracy"

[Tesha]

22. This issue was debated at the highest levels of the ACLU

including their national executive board. It caused a
lot of dissension within both ACLU national and the
local affiliates.

But the bottom line was that if you want to defend free
speech, you had to come down on Citizens United's side
of the issue; there was simply no other outcome that
wouldn't end up abridging your right to free speech or
the rights of some organization ("corporation") that you
*DO* hold dear (such as the national Democratic Party).

I realize the ACLU's participation in this will be just as
unpopular as was their participation in the Skokie decision,
but it was absolutely the correct thing to do.

If you want this decision altered, work to affect the fraud
that is Corporate Personood; that's where the problem really
resides.

Tesha

[NJmaverick]

26. Money is not speech and corporations are not citizens

[Tesha]

32. You can say that all you like, but a fair reading of current law and case law...

...unfortunately says you're wrong.

If you don't like the status quo, you (and I) have
work to do.

Tesha

[NJmaverick]

47. Bull, fair reading of case law and the constitution say I am 100% right

while the right wing five's new law ignores all of that.

[Tesha]

50. But of course you are. (NT)

[NJmaverick]

54. Neither are the 4 justices that weren't appointed by liberty hating right wingers

[Luminous Animal]

37. The ACLU never made the argument that money is speech and that corps

are citizens.

[verges]

28. +1 nt

[treestar]

59. Yes, people may hate "corporations" all they want but it's stupid

since some "corporation" could put out an ad that is pro-liberal or for a liberal candidate.

Then it'll be OK.

[Libertas1776]

33. Unfortunately,

this does have precedence. Plessy v. Ferguson was started by a New Orleans civil rights group who hired a cop to arrest Plessy (with Plessy's permission) while he was sitting in the white's only section of the rail car, in order to present a case against these segregation laws in court. The basis being that how could any official, conductor, etc determine whether someone like Plessy, who was negligibly black, belonged in the white or colored section of the car. The group's goal was to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court and finally have segregation laws declared unconstitutional. Well, we all know how that turned out, don't we?

[Luminous Animal]

34. In their brief, their sole focus was a narrow ruling.

I would bet less than 10% of those voting in your poll actually read their brief.

Elliot Spitzer also supported an overturning of section 203 of McCain-Feingold for the exact reason the ACLU did.

[fishwax]

38. Certainly -- I believe the AFL-CIO also supported citizens united in this case

I won't turn away from unions, either, though I hate yesterday's ruling.

[Joanne98]

40. No

[tekisui]

42. Absolutely they do.

They argued for free speech, as they always do.

The government is the entity that extends that right to corporations.

The ACLU is still critical and has done decades of incredible work to preserve our rights.

[HughMoran]

43. Did they support CU?

I have posted the summary of the brief with some comments here -> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7543404

It seems that they saw an ancillary later decision derived from the CU case as unconstitutional, but they did not specifically argue for the main focus of the CU case.

[grahamhgreen]

44. After this ruling, I don't know if they will be relevant anymore.

[slackmaster]

45. None of the choices fit my position, so I'll simply explain it here

I stopped supporting the ACLU about 25 years ago when I learned that they don't view the Second Amendment as protective of the right of individuals and families to keep and bear arms.

They occasionally call me to ask me to re-join, and every time I politely give the same explanation: I'll start sending them money as soon as they start defending ALL of our civil rights.

[vincna]

49. I'll think about supporting them when...

they start defending our 2nd Amendment rights.

[Luminous Animal]

56. Why should they? There is already a very powerful well-funded organization

that does that. Why should the ACLU expend money and energy on an issue that they take no official position on and do not fight against? The ACLU deals primarily with First Amendment rights, the NRA has the Second covered.

[treestar]

58. Yes.

They will argue for free speech, even those we don't like.