ACLU's Opposition to Kavanaugh Sounds Its Death Knell
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
ACLU's Opposition to Kavanaugh Sounds Its Death Knell
by Alan M. Dershowitz , Gatestone Institute, October 6, 2018
President Trump greeting Brett Kavanaugh and his family. Why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against him? (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, it is appropriate to look at the damage caused by the highly partisan confirmation process. Among the casualties has been an organization I have long admired.
After Politico reported that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was spending more than $1 million to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, I checked the ACLU website to see if its core mission had changed -- if the ACLU had now officially abandoned its non-partisan nature and become yet another Democratic super PAC. But no, the ACLU still claims it is "non-partisan."
So why did the ACLU oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against that judicial nominee?
The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor. Before Donald Trump was elected President, the ACLU had an annual operating budget of $60 million dollars. [1] When I was on the ACLU National Board, it was a fraction of that amount. Today it is flush with cash, with net assets of over $450 million dollars. As the ACLU itself admitted in its annual report ending 2017, it received "unprecedented donations" after President Trump's election. Unprecedented" it truly has been: the ACLU received $120 million dollars from online donations alone (up from $3-5 million during the Obama years).
The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil liberties. To its everlasting disgrace, the ACLU is abandoning its mission in order to follow the money. It now spends millions of dollars on TV ads that are indistinguishable from left wing organizations, such as MoveOn, the Democratic National Committee and other partisan groups.
As the New Yorker reported on the ACLU's "reinvention in the Trump era,"
"In this midterm year...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 A.C.L.U., itself newly flush, has begun to an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than twenty-five million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by [Midterm] Election Day, in November. Anthony Romero, the group's executive director, told me, 'It used to be that, when I had a referendum I really cared about, I could spend fifty thousand dollars.'"
This new strategy can be seen in many of the ACLU's actions, which would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen's office was raided by the FBI and his clients' files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.
Everything the ACLU does today seems to be a function of its fundraising. To be sure, it must occasionally defend a Nazi, a white supremacist, or even a mainstream conservative. But that is not its priority these days, either financially or emotionally. Its heart and soul are in its wallet and checkbook. It is getting rich while civil liberties are suffering.
There appears to be a direct correlation between the ACLU's fundraising and its priorities. When the ACLU's national political director and former Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, "People have funded us and I think they expect a return." Its funders applaud the result because many of these mega donors could not care less about genuine civil liberties or due process. What they care about are political results: more left-wing Democrats in Congress, fewer conservative justices on the Supreme Court and more money in the ACLU coffers.
When I served both on the National and Massachusetts Boards of the American Civil Liberties Union, board members included conservative Republicans, old line Brahmans, religious ministers, schoolteachers, labor union leaders and a range of ordinary folks who cared deeply about core civil liberties. The discussions were never partisan. They always focused on the Bill of Rights. There were considerable disagreements about whether various amendments covered the conduct at issue. But no one ever introduced the question of whether taking a position would help the Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, Jews or Catholics or any other identifiable group. We cared about applying the constitution fairly to everyone, without regard to the political consequences.
As the New Yorker described these more innocent times: the ACLU "... has been fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with political power that its leadership, in the nineteen-eighties and nineties, declined even to give awards to like-minded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression."
Those days are now gone. Instead we have a variant on the question my immigrant grandmother asked when I told her the Brooklyn Dodgers won the World Series in 1955: "Yeah, but, vuz it good or bad for the Jews?" My Grandmother was a strong advocate of identity politics: all she cared about was the Jews. That was 63 years ago. The questions being asked today by ACLU board members is: is it good or bad for the left, is it good or bad for Democrats, is it good or bad for women, is it good or bad for people of color, is it good or bad for gays?
These are reasonable questions to be asked by groups dedicated to the welfare of these groups but not by a group purportedly dedicated to civil liberties for all. A true civil libertarian transcends identity politics and cares about the civil liberties of one's political enemies because he or she recognizes that this is the only way that civil liberties for everyone will be preserved.
Today, too few people are asking: Is it good or bad for civil liberties?
Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School .
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
66 visitors
I find it interesting that Dershowitz, who is an avowed liberal Democrat, has the guts to point out the rot in the ACLU. It proves that he is honest and believable. It appears that the ACLU now is known to "Follow the money" rather than "Follow their conscience". "Greed is Good" takes on new meaning in America. I will never again respect a reference to the findings of the ACLU made by a member here.
By the way, this was a Gatestone Institute published article - is it Islamophobic? Did John Bolton have anything to do with it? What other reason will its detractors have to criticize it?
Dershowitz is out of his mind. The ACLU isn't going anywhere.
Of course it isn't going to "go" anywhere - aren't its offices in America? Isn't that what the "A" in its acronym means? As for its function, as Dershowitz has observed, (He once was on its National Board - did you notice? So he does know a little more about its organization than you do.) the organization seems to have changed its priorities. Oh, and I wish I was as much out of my mind as he is out of his.
I would not trust the ACLU (American Civil Leftist's Union) to walk my dog! They claim to represent the little people, but that is a joke. Several years ago, I filed suit against a former employer in a age discrimination case through their Tucson office. After asking my political affiliation, I was bluntly told they could not help me because my case was not high profile enough for them, and that I did not have a Hispanic sounding last name, despite the fact that I am of Hispanic descent. I lost any faith or respect for the ACLU after that!
Ummm, what do you think they would do to your dog? Just wondering!
Interesting ...... I wonder what political affiliation has to do with an age discrimination case.
Probably the same thing they do to the average person asking for their help that does not fit their agenda. But I try not to use that kind of language on line.
I asked them the same thing, they would not answer, and promptly told them that was none of their business!
I'm calling BS on this because they defended Neo-Nazis, Limbaugh and Fred Phelps, among other conservatives.
Call whatever you want, I really do not care. I'm going by my own personal experience with the ACLU down here on the border.
Age discrimination doesn't matter if you live by the border or in Iowa. Did you first approach a lawyer who is knowledgeable in employment law before you went to the ACLU?
I should have taken the time to do that research. Thanks.
A good attorney gives good legal advice.
That includes declining a case or talking you out of a lawsuit, that while morally sound, will bankrupt the plaintiff and do almost no damage to the defendant.
Agreed, and antithetical to greed. Not just a good attorney, but an honest one as well.
And all those you mentioned were high profile cases guaranteed to generate lots of publicity for the ACLU!
Great article by a great man, who represents the old style liberal as opposed to the modern day progressive. The ACLU is now a political organization which opposes civil liberties for Conservatives and others. It opposes all the important freedoms Professor Dershowitz listed above.
The ACLU has become the Anti Civil Liberties Union.
What constitutional right have you been denied because of the ACLU?
It has opposed due process for Judge Kavanaugh
A court nomination is not a constitutional right.
If a court nomination is a right and being opposed is a violation of his rights then Mitch McConnell and the GOP violated the rights of Merrick Garland.
When was the trial?
Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution:
"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law
If a court nomination is a right and being opposed is a violation of his rights then Mitch McConnell and the GOP violated the rights of Merrick Garland.
Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution:
"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate
He is granted that right at all times. Even when Universities were pressured by President Obama, they should have given the accused that right. It is the golden thread not only of American law but also of common law.
A nominee doesn't have the absolute right to be approved by the Senate. The Senate approval isn't a rubber stamp.
What happened to the supposed due process rights of nominee Merrick Garland that you are claiming that Kavanaugh was deined by the Democratic opposition? He never had a chance to go before the Senate, the way Kavanaugh did.
I don't recall anyone being thrown in prison without due process. But since you brought it up. Who was it again that said, "If I were president you would be locked up!"? No trial, no charges..."Lock HER up!!!!"? Ring any bells?
All Criminals Liberals United.
I'm a 20+ year member and that is a personal attack.
So you were with them even when they believed in civil liberties?
What civil liberty don't the ACLU believe in now?
Simply put, that is Bullshit. Did XX have knowledge you are supposedly a member of the ACLU? Did he specifically call you a criminal?
It is well known that there are many members of the ACLU on the forum. Claiming that all members of the ACLU are criminals is a sweeping generalization.
I received my new ACLU member card in March and it is the new style card. I'd post a picture as proof but I'm not putting my name out there for people to dox. I still have my first ACLU card from 1992.
Keeping it away from the liberals then. Doxxing is one of their tactics.
I was previously doxxed on another site because there were a few people who didn't like the way that I kicked them around on a daily basis. Those dipsticks were Ayn Rand true believers and a few bricks short of a load.
I'm not an Ayn Rand Libertarian but I did enjoy watching the Fountainhead movie. Does that make me a few bricks short of a load?
I have a problem with libertarians because they don't see the forest for the trees. Ayn Rand was a lousy philosopher and a hypocrite.
They have become irrelevant, as has the Democrat Party.
Dershowitz has the right idea, it would be useful to the Democrats to heed his advice.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/kavanaugh-and-impeachment-%e2%80%93-democrats-don%e2%80%99t-try-to-conduct-a-revenge-inquisition/ar-BBO2cIM?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP
So you are opposed to defending civil rights?
This appears to be a slightly controversial topic which I need to moderate, so since it's 10:15 pm where I am and I will soon be turning off my computer, I am locking this seed now and will unlock it in about 9 or 10 hours from now.
This article is now unlocked. It is about the American CIVIL Liberties Union, so please be CIVIL.
It is about the American CIVIL Liberties Union, so please be CIVIL.
LOL, cute
and good luck.
I never called it anything but Civil above. It is the word after that that I question...
Today, too few people are asking: Is it good or bad for civil liberties?
Yeah but it seems many are adding "for all Americans ?"
Why ? Evidently THEY dont yet think they are included.
Why ?
"For all Americans." Wow and hot damn you hit that sucker right between the eyes.
It seems the general trend of those wielding 'the power of influence' for the these past few years have successfully sown the seeds for a portion of Americans to believe that some of their fellow Americans simply, aren't.
The ACLU defends civil liberties, even unpopular ones. I believe the 'popular ones' are under attack and the pressure is about to increase.
This appears to be a slightly controversial topic which I need to moderate, so since it's almost 10 pm where I am I will soon be turning off my computer, so I am locking this seed now and will unlock it in about 10 hours from now.
A little later than I intended, but this seed is now unlocked. I got hung up on dealing with a seed I did not know was an unacceptable source on NT, but as soon as that was confirmed I deleted it.
Okay, it's 10:15 p.m. where I am so it's time to lock this seed for the night. I will reopen it in around 10 hours from now.
As promised, this seed is now unlocked. I will leave it unlocked for the day, and then, as it has been around for three days and has run its course, is no longer a current issue, I will lock it permanently in about 14 hours from now.
Okay, it's after 10 p.m. and I'm going to turn off my computer, so as I said I would do, I am now going to lock this seed for good.