╌>

The final nail in the ACLU's coffin (Op/Ed)

  

Category:  Alternative Energy

Via:  buzz-of-the-orient  •  6 years ago  •  73 comments

The final nail in the ACLU's coffin (Op/Ed)

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The final nail in the ACLU's coffin (Op/Ed)

BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, The Hill, 06/11/18

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

aclu.jpg
© Getty Images

The director of the American Civil Liberties Union has now acknowledged what should have been obvious to everybody over the past several years: The ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties. It has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group. The final nail in its coffin was the announcement that, for the first time in its history, the ACLU would become involved in partisan electoral politics, supporting candidates, referenda and other agenda-driven political goals.

The headline in the June 8 edition of the New Yorker tells it all: “The ACLU is getting involved in elections — and reinventing itself for the Trump era.” The article continues: “In this midterm year, however, as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye presidential runs, the ACLU, itself newly flush, has begun to move in step with the times. For the first time in its history, the ACLU is taking an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than 25 million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November.”

Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of the New Yorker, “fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with any political power that its leadership, in the 1980s and 90s, declined even to give awards to likeminded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression.” I know, because I served on its national board in the early days of my own career.

In those days, the board consisted of individuals who were deeply committed to core civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, opposition to prosecutorial overreach and political equality. Its board members included Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right wingers and left wingers, all of whom supported neutral civil liberties. The key test in those days was what I have come to call “the shoe on the other foot” test: Would you vote the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if the party labels were switched?

Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe, and it is on its left foot. Its color is blue. The only dispute is whether it supports the progressive wing of the Democratic Party or its more centrist wing. There is little doubt that most board members today support the progressive wing, though some think that even that wing is not sufficiently left. There is no longer any room in the ACLU for true conservatives who are deeply committed to neutral civil liberties. The litmus test is support for hard-left policies.

To be sure, the ACLU will still occasionally take a high profile case involving a Nazi or Klan member who has been denied freedom of speech, though there are now some on the board who would oppose supporting such right-wing extremists. But the core mission of the ACLU — and its financial priority — is to promote its left-wing agenda in litigation, in public commentary and, now, in elections.  If you want to know the reason for this shift, just follow the money. ACLU contributors, including some of its most generous contributors, are strong anti-Trump zealots who believe that the end (getting rid of Trump) justifies any means (including denying Trump and his associates core civil liberties and due process).

Anthony Romero, the current radical leftist who directs the ACLU, refers to those of us who favor the ACLU traditional mission as “the old guard.” The leading critic of the ACLU’s newfound partisan mission is Romero’s predecessor, Ira Glasser, who was the executive director of the ACLU from 1978 until 2001. Glasser believes that this transformation in the way the ACLU has operated since 1920 “has the capacity to destroy the organization as it has always existed.”

Glasser points out that some of the greatest violations of civil liberties throughout history have come from “progressive politicians, such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt who interned 110,000 Japanese-American citizens.” He worries, and I worry, that when the ACLU supports parties and partisan agendas, it will become less willing to criticize those it has supported when they violate civil liberties.

The presidency of Donald Trump has introduced a new dynamic. Trump himself has denied fundamental civil liberties by his immigration policies, his attitude and actions regarding the press, and his calls for criminal investigations of his political enemies. The ACLU will criticize those actions, as it should. But the president has also pushed the ACLU further to the left and into partisan politics. Trump is so despised by ACLU contributors that they have increased their contributions, but also demand the ACLU be on the forefront of ending his presidency, either through impeachment, criminal prosecution or electoral defeat.

The move of the ACLU to the far left reflects an even more dangerous and more general trend in the United States: The right is moving further right, the left is moving further left, and the center is shrinking. The center-left is losing its influence in organizations like the ACLU, and the center-right is losing its influence in conservative organizations.

America has always thrived at the center and has always suffered when extremes gain power. The ACLU’s move from neutral protector of civil liberties to partisan advocate of liberal politics is both a symptom and consequence of this change. If America is to remain strong, its major institutions must move closer to the center and reject the extremes of both sides. If the ACLU does not return to its core values, a new organization must be created to champion those values.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School . He is the author of “ Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy ” and “ The Case Against BDS: Why Singling Out Israel for Boycott is Anti-Semitic and Anti-Peace .”


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

That organization no longer qualifies to use that name - it should never have adopted a political stance.  It may as well merge with the SPLC.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1    6 years ago

Excellent expose. BTW it's been obvious for more than a few years.

Somebody has to counter this organization and make them pay.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    6 years ago

What amuses me is to see our left-wingers here discredit Dershowitz, when he is a long-time Democrat and avowed left-winger. I guess the difference is in the fact that Dershowitz will not slavishly adhere to the party line like a poodle if he sees flaws that need correction, and this situation is an example of that. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.1    6 years ago

That is the difference. Ideology always comes first even if they have to eat their own and to them the ends always justify the means!

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.3  lennylynx  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    6 years ago

Lol!  Trump supporters are the epitome of ideology always coming first.  After putting a piece of fucking shit like that in the White House, righties have NO right to ever say one fucking word about partisanship, ideology, or lying.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.4  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  lennylynx @1.1.3    6 years ago

Trump is not the topic, the ACLU is - ideology and party politics, perhaps, but not Trump. Off topic. 

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.5  lennylynx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.4    6 years ago

I disagree.  The ridiculous attack on the ACLU has EVERYTHING to do with Trump.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  lennylynx @1.1.5    6 years ago
The ridiculous attack on the ACLU has EVERYTHING to do with Trump.

Read the article, then comment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.6    6 years ago
'Read the article, then comment.'

laughing dude

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2  epistte    6 years ago

Piss on Alan Dershowitz. The ACLU has no adopted a political stance, except for the support of the US Constitution.

To claim that the ACLU has given FDR a pass is intellectually dishonest in the extreme,

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @2    6 years ago

So you are calling Dershowitz a liar. You certainly are a fast reader as I just posted the seed.  Did you bother to read the whole article or just want to piss on whatever Dershowitz has to say?  I'm sure others have different opinions.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1    6 years ago

Yes, I am calling Alan Dershowitz a liar.

Is the ACLU expected to ignore all of the times that Trump has threatened the US Constiution just to appear non-partisan?

The ACLU is getting involved in elections to protect the voting rights of people, but they have never supported/endorsed a candidate. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    6 years ago
they have never supported/endorsed a candidate

They have contributed money to several candidates - usually Democrats .

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.5  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.3    6 years ago

The ACLU does not endorse candidates for elected office.

The ACLU will not endorse or oppose specific candidates for elected office. Our goal is to ensure that voters are educated about the potential consequences of an election, not to support specific candidates . Therefore, you will not see the ACLU setting up a PAC or independent expenditure arm.

The ACLU takes its nonpartisan status very seriously. We are not nonpartisan merely out of tradition or to protect our tax status; we are nonpartisan because our commitment to civil rights and civil liberties drives everything we do. We are nonpartisan because we have had allies from all political stripes and all political parties – and opponents, also. Rather than judge politicians based on their party affiliation, we judge them on their records on civil liberties and civil rights. When we engage in a race, we do so to highlight the issues we care about.

Success for us is infusing a discussion of key civil liberties issues into the elections and into a voter’s calculus when casting that vote. We would welcome candidates with poor records to alter or renounce their positions as a result of our advocacy. We’re trying to change hearts and minds on civil liberties issues, and therefore we have long-term goals. For instance, an anti-civil liberties candidate may very well win despite our best efforts to educate voters about that race, but we will nevertheless have fulfilled our mission there if we’re able to increase voters’ understanding and awareness of civil liberties issues.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.8  epistte  replied to    6 years ago
In other words. We will do our best to make sure the candidates we support win. We will become involved with and will endorse the candidate we support. We will donate large sums of money to the candidate we support.

This is the mission of the ACLU and they are now discussing the constitutional issues that are involved in the races.  Don't support candidates whose support ideas that are contrary to the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.9  epistte  replied to    6 years ago
The ACLU lies why isn't that a surprise? Remember the ACLU was founded by a communist that said "“I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.

I don't have a problem with that idea. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.12  epistte  replied to    6 years ago
Yeah, girl, we can always trust an organization founded by a communist to support the Bill of Rights and our Constitutional rights. Right?

Baldwin was not supporting Russia or China.  Russia and China were not communist, any more than North Korea is a democratic republic.  Baldwin said that he favored removing the state, which obviously didn't happen in Russia and China. Baldwin was closer to a lefty anarachist. The poli-sci term is libertarian-socialism.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.13  epistte  replied to    6 years ago
So you admit the ACLU does support candidates they like. That's a first.

Ther ACLU is educating voters on the issues, just like the League Of Women Voters traditionally does.  They feel that the more p that people know about the issues then they will make better choices at the polls.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.14  Skrekk  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1    6 years ago
So you are calling Dershowitz a liar.

I'd also call him delusional.    He's become a real nutcase in his dotage.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.15  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @2.1.13    6 years ago

Which are you - a psychiatrist or a psychologist?

And please point out the lies he has told that would affirm your opinion of his being a liar.  Sorry, but I would like to see evidence before being convinced of that, or else I'll just assume that accusation to be libelous.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.16  epistte  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.15    6 years ago

Which are you - a psychiatrist or a psychologist?

And please point out the lies he has told that would affirm your opinion of his being a liar.  Sorry, but I would like to see evidence before being convinced of that, or else I'll just assume that accusation to be libelous.

I am obviously neither. I have 3 psych' courses (101, human sexuality and industrial psychology).  I have read extensively on the subject because of my PTSD and because psychology gives me a way to understand how other people act. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.17  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @2.1.16    6 years ago

Oops.  My bad.  Sorry.  I thought I directed my comment to Skrekk, not you.  I'm having a problem with my computer, in that the window image jumps just as I click a link, in this case "reply" so it jumped to your comment and showed up as addressing you instead of Skrekk.  I'll leave it so your comment remains contextual (it was civil and respectful - a good reply), and readdress my question to Skrekk. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.18  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.14    6 years ago

Which are you - a psychiatrist or a psychologist?

And please point out the lies he has told that would affirm your opinion of his being a liar.  Sorry, but I would like to see evidence before being convinced of that, or else I'll just assume that accusation to be libelous.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.19  epistte  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.17    6 years ago
I'm having a problem with my computer, in that the window image jumps just as I click a link, in this case "reply" so it jumped to your comment and showed up as addressing you instead of Skrekk.

Mine has been doing the same thing. I assume it is the forum software as a way to get us to click on adverts instead of the articles because those errant ad' clicks make money. I stopped using another site because it consistently moved every time that you tried to open a story.  It's the new version of pop-ups.

This software is horrific. I miss vBulletin forum software.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.20  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @2.1.19    6 years ago

I mentioned the problem to Perrie a little while ago (it's only ONE of the problems I'm having, such as how slow the loading is, or often not permitting me to thumb-up or update or even post sometimes). 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.22  epistte  replied to    6 years ago
In other words the ACLU is trying to influence people into how the ACLU wants them to vote.

That would depend on if the voters support or oppose the constitutional issue in question. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.2  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @2    6 years ago
The ACLU has no adopted a political stance, except for the support of the US Constitution.

Sorry, but they have. Here is a link to the article in The New Yorker that Professor Dershowitz is referencing. I didn't realize it, but actually, they have been donating modest amounts of money to candidates for several years - 97% of recipients have been Democrats .

To claim that the ACLU has given FDR a pass is intellectually dishonest in the extreme

I don't know if you're utilizing a straw man, or if you just missed the point. I'll assume the latter to your benefit.

Dershowitz does not accuse the ACLU of giving FDR a pass. The Japanese internment is offered only as an example of a progressive leader (FDR) depriving citizens of civil rights on a dramatic scale. The point being that the ACLU should be focused on civil rights and not just blindly supporting a certain political party.

Such political bias will put the ACLU in the position of ignoring the civil liberties of conservatives or anyone else they don't agree with. That is not a position that supports the US Constitution.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @2.2    6 years ago

and the website that lists those modest donations to the DNC, a handful of candidates and some PACs clearly notes on each page

that the ACLU did not donate the money.

from the 3rd "page" which you originally linked...

This table lists candidates receiving money from this organization in 2017-2018. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals may include subsidiaries and affiliates.

The first 2 pages have similar disclosures and much more clearly indicate a bias toward the Democrats, but again, not from the ACLU itself.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.1    6 years ago

So they're in the business of (legally) laundering money (or facilitating donations, if you like) from contributors to Democratic candidates. In what way does that change the observation that the ACLU is a partisan political player instead of a neutral defender of everyone's rights?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.2.3  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    6 years ago

Then support repealing Citizens United that opened the unlimited PAC loophole. 

The ACLU does not and will never have a PAC.

The ACLU will not coordinate with any partisan organization. While the ACLU believes deeply in working in coalition with other non-profits, we have no interest in partisan coordination. Our aims are different from those of a political party, and are driven by issue-based goals. (We know, for instance, gerrymandered political maps that disenfranchise voters have been drawn by both Republicans and Democrats.) We welcome coordination with any and all groups who share our goals and our desire to engage in issue advocacy.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3  Tacos!    6 years ago

I think this is the saddest thing I've read all week. The ACLU, like the NAACP, did some really wonderful and important work in the 20th century in defense of individual liberty and civil rights. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5  It Is ME    6 years ago

" Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of the New Yorker, “fastidiously nonpartisan,"

Maybe 100 years ago. yelling

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6  JBB    6 years ago

Well, I am still proud Democratic card carrying member of the ACLU, the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League no matter what some demented olde lawyer says. Still proud to be a liberal which does not, BTW, translate into supporting terrorists, being antisemitic or any other such ridiculous vitriolic nonsense no matter how vainly some may insist upon twisting any personal disagreements with themselves into meaning. Dershowitz is just an olde contrarian. His opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's regarding Russiagate. Freedom of speech is alive and  well in the USofA. Dershowitz must be suffering dementia or else he just wants that final bit a attention. Plainly it is past time he should have been put out to pasture. So, I guess he is willing ot do anything and say anything just to get his dumb mug in front of the TV cameras again. That is pretty much the only thing he is infamous for other than that was helping to exonerate that no good lying piece of trash society murderer Claus Von Bulow for killing his wife Sonny. It is accepted as fact now Von Bulow was guilty sa hell so there is that.. I guess if Dershowitz is now defending Trump then that would indicate to me that Trump is guilty as hell too but then I already knew that. The only ones left denying the reality of Trump's guilt are those way for out there on the far far right who must strain their own credibility beyond the breaking point to remain unaware the facts anymore. When all is said and done it won't be the ACLU that loses all credibility No, that will will be Trump, his lame brained supporters like Derschowitz and the damn gop...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JBB @6    6 years ago
Well, I am still proud Democratic card carrying member of the ACLU

And as the article points out "The group has plans to spend more than 25 million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November.” which pretty much refutes his assertion that the ACLU is dead. They are more alive and active now than every before because never before in American history have we faced such blatant fascism and an attack on our civil liberties.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller

Of course the ACLU is going to stand up against Trump and his disgusting perversions of justice and power grabs, they know if they don't there will be no one to stand up for our civil rights left.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.2  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @6    6 years ago

When Dershowitz sees injustice, he doesn't put duct tape on his mouth as others do, even if such injustice is perpetrated by the political side he supports.  That's one of the reasons I have so much respect for him.  He will both walk the talk and talk the walk, and maybe that's because he is so much more brilliant than a lot of members whose comments I've seen here. It's certainly why I think he should be appointed to the SCOTUS - he doesn't let party politics interfere with justice.  In my opinion he's a lawyer's lawyer, but a person who isn't a lawyer (or prejudiced by party politics or other bigotry) would not be able to understand that.

Perhaps you mightn't know this, but every accused person is entitled to representation, and the lawyer who represents the accused is oath-bound to do the the best he can to win for his client, or he should not be practising law. Von Bulow got the best representation available to him, as did OJ - whether or not they were established to be guilty afterwards. The world of justice isn't as depicted in the movie "And Justice for All" where Al Pacino screamed at the jury that his client was as guilty as hell, because a real lawyer would be disbarred for having done that. I can't believe that you blame a lawyer for doing the job he is bound to do. I suppose you think that doctors should piss on the hippocratic oath, and priests should publish a newspaper with everyone's confession as well.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Senior Quiet
7  Colour Me Free    6 years ago
To claim that the ACLU has given FDR a pass is intellectually dishonest in the extreme

I did not read such a intellectually dishonest statement in the opinion piece seeded, I did however read this:

Glasser points out that some of the greatest violations of civil liberties throughout history have come from “progressive politicians, such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt who interned 110,000 Japanese-American citizens.” He worries, and I worry, that when the ACLU supports parties and partisan agendas, it will become less willing to criticize those it has supported when they violate civil liberties.

I have long been a supporter of the ACLU .. thought I always would be a supporter .. given the backlash after having defended the White Nationalist venue choice in Charlottesville - as if a change of venue would have prevented the violence that erupted that day(?) - Individuals in masks, carrying baseball bats exercised their right to protest people exercising their right to assemble / march and carry firearms while doing so...  I knew that the ACLU had chosen to no longer defend 'hate groups' that protested with firearms (Which I fail to see the significance of said action in regards to the events in Charlottesville - there was only one shot fired .. however I supported the decision)

Now the decision to support political causes and candidates as an organization .. does not really matter whether R or D … to me it taints the mission of what was once the ACLU - to protect civil liberties for all...  perhaps the ACLU will get back on track after the 'era of Trump' (?) as of now the mission is to do anything that is considered anti-Trump (?) 

I have found other sources to read on the subject and am off to read ……………. but it is / will be a sad day for Americans to lose the ACLU to partisan politics - 

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
8  PJ    6 years ago

Alan Dershowitz is nothing more than a crusty old dingleberry on President Trump's ass.   

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  PJ @8    6 years ago

Eww.  Hi PJ.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
8.1.1  PJ  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1    6 years ago
Eww.  Hi PJ.

devil

Sorry, but he's a disgrace.  He's so far up Trump's ass that he's lost all credibility.  

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9      6 years ago

Peter Strzok

US government
Image caption
FBI agent Peter Strzok texted his lover that they could "stop" Mr Trump becoming president
But the report also touched on text messages between two FBI officials who later worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the US election.
Peter Strzok, who was Mr Mueller's lead agent in Russian inquiry, was having an affair with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation.
When Ms Page asked if Mr Trump would become president, Mr Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
The report called this "not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects".

Colour and Bold added by E.A

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
9.1  lib50  replied to  @9    6 years ago
The report called this "not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects".

Which they did NOT find.  There were no actions taken by either one of them to impact the election.  So that would be a fail of that conspiracy theory.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
10      6 years ago

blind_justice_II.jpg

Just in case anyone misunderstand what and why I posted the above .

I am apolitical, But ANY and all investigation need to be conducted with no Bigotry OR Prejudice, in this case they have failed on BOTH!

                                

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
10.1  lib50  replied to  @10    6 years ago
ANY and all investigation need to be conducted with no Bigotry OR Prejudice, in this case they have failed on BOTH!

No, they didn't.  It's slightly funny that the same people who could not get enough political theater during Benghazi are now hyperventilating over a fair and balanced report after this investigation.  Don't think republicans know what real investigations are all about, they only know their partisan ones.  (more projection)

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
12      6 years ago
Oh yes, the FBI is beyond criticism, isn't it. God forbid

E.A  Yes LOL at a Democracy of ALL places :-) 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
13  Kavika     6 years ago

I would ask Alan Dershowitz if he ever lived or defended Natives in a sundown town. Or if he risked his life to defend wrongly arrested and tried natives in kangaroo courts. Perhaps he did but I don't remember seeing him in Mankato, Bemidji, Rapid City or Minneapolis...Funny how it goes when those that have never needed the help of the ACLU can pass judgement. 

I don't need to read about cases that the ACLU defended some are real life for me. 

It was the lawyers of the ACLU that would take down and dirty cases in towns that Dershowitz didn't know existed. None of the case were the OJ case. They were for people that couldn't afford a good defense. Good people working out of small offices in towns that they were not welcomed in. 

So Mr. Dershowitz tell me when you'll be in SD/ND/MN defending Natives that are being screwed by the system. When you do that I'll meet you there. I know that the ACLU will be there.

Nothing more to add. I'm done with the article.

,

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
13.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @13    6 years ago

Did the Indians hire Dershowitz to defend those cases? If not, then you are being unfair.

"Nothing more to add. I'm done with the article."

So am I. I'm locking it now because there are certain NT members who would rather attack and insult other members than address the issues. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
14  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

At least what I've learned by posting this article is that left-wingers don't reserve their pissing efforts on just right-wingers, but they're very democratic and will piss on anyone.  Because this article has turned from addressing issues to attacking other members I'm locking the article - for good. 

 
 

Who is online

Trout Giggles
Snuffy
Sean Treacy


68 visitors