The ACLU

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Deja~vu
What are your opinions on this Strong organisation? There are people that view it as against a harsh ultraconservative or moral institution. There are others that see it as a great safe guard against the stripping away of the United States Constitution.

chithappens
The what?

Deja~vu
The American Civil Liberties Union. It is one of the biggest lobby groups in the US.

Robtard
Mixed feelings, they have gone too far on some issues, imo.

Supporting NAMBLA
Restricting Megan's Law
Supporting The Westboro Baptist Church
The internet SPAM issue.

There are other instances where I disagreed, they escape me though.

Deja~vu
Could you remark on those topics that dissatisfy you. Please explain why their views on those topics are in disagreement with your views.

Robtard
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Could you remark on those topics that dissatisfy you. Please explain why their views on those topics are in disagreement with your views.

NAMBLA = Man and Boy love
Megan's Law = Tracking sexual offenders
Westboro = Assclowns
SPAM = I hate spam.

NAMBLA, even though it wasn't about defending NAMBLA's man-boy relationship stance though. I'm just biased against them and therefore hate all association.

Megan's Law. I feel that sexual predators should be tracked and kept an eye on. Even ones that committed their crime prior to the law.

Westboro, I don't agree that they have the right to picket and disrupt a private funeral service. They can yell "God hates ****" on the corner all they like though.

SPAM, is an invasion of privacy, I don't think any company or person should have the right to upload advertisements, propaganda or programs into my comp.

=Tired Hiker=
I've had to interview them for the news on several occasions regarding some strange issues. For one, the ACLU supports people handing out female escort pamphlets on the Las Vegas strip since it's public property and it's a form of freedom of expression or something like that. Also, they told me that the big casino's cannot kick me off the sidewalk in front of their property if I'm shooting video. Alot of the casino's claim that they actually own the sidewalk in front of their buildings, but according to the ACLU, they infact do not. The ACLU told me that if I ever get kicked off a sidewalk for shooting video of a casino, then I should call them and file a lawsuit that I would totally win. Well, I have yet to ever be kicked off a sidewalk. A guy tried to indimidate me once and I basically ignored him and kept shooting. He even threatened to call the police and I just pointed my video camera at him and asked, "You want me to call them for you? I got the number programmed in my phone." I then explained to him I could shoot anything I wanted from a sidewalk and he can't do anything about it, and then he left me alone.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Robtard
NAMBLA = Man and Boy love
Megan's Law = Tracking sexual offenders
Westboro = Assclowns
SPAM = I hate spam.

NAMBLA, even though it wasn't about defending NAMBLA's man-boy relationship stance though. I'm just biased against them and therefore hate all association.

Megan's Law. I feel that sexual predators should be tracked and kept an eye on. Even ones that committed their crime prior to the law.

Westboro, I don't agree that they have the right to picket and disrupt a private funeral service. They can yell "God hates ****" on the corner all they like though.

SPAM, is an invasion of privacy, I don't think any company or person should have the right to upload advertisements, propaganda or programs into my comp.

1. NAMBLA. I am not in disagreement there. But this organisation may feel the nuance of other more liberal countries and cultures that this is a natural part of their culture. It is freedom in that culture or way of life as in a global whole.

2. I also feel that way, but with prejudice. If it was a one time deal or if a person had over come that tendency, it would be not in his rights to be labeled for life since we have a right to privacy. If however this is something that is concurrent, then yes it should be know to everyone. I believe that society should be aware of such pretiores.

3. That is their rights just as it is our rights to picket views against our thinking. A great and wonderful example would be one that Judges in the Supreme Court not serve a life tern.

4. I hate span, but it is another right. It my be progressive and annoying, but then we have the right to make exceptions to it.

Bardock42
The ACLU sounds pretty awesome

Robtard
Originally posted by Deja~vu


3. That is their rights just as it is our rights to picket views against our thinking. A great and wonderful example would be one that Judges in the Supreme Court not serve a life tern.

4. I hate span, but it is another right. It my be progressive and annoying, but then we have the right to make exceptions to it.

Since there is little conflict in 1 & 2, I'll bypass those.

Can I come into yor house and yell "God hates women" freely? Remember, funerals are private, not public.

Again, my computer is personally owned by me. Would you mind if I went into your car and set it so your stereo played advertisements of my choosing, over and over?

Bardock42
What exactly is the view of the ACLU on spam?

Bardock42
Also, as far as I understand the issue, westboro doesn't crash the funerals themselves, they protest nearby, which, as much as they are indeed assclowns, is and should be a right.

fascistcrusader
THe ACLU is a ridiculous organization. They were founded by a man who was a devout Marxist and hoped to see Communism take root in America, and now all they do is defend the lowest of the low. Having sex with the plastic donkey at a nativity seen isn't freedom of speech, its public indecency and lewd conduct.

Bardock42
Originally posted by fascistcrusader
THe ACLU is a ridiculous organization. They were founded by a man who was a devout Marxist and hoped to see Communism take root in America, and now all they do is defend the lowest of the low. Having sex with the plastic donkey at a nativity seen isn't freedom of speech, its public indecency and lewd conduct. Nah. It's freedom.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Bardock42
The ACLU sounds pretty awesome It is probably the only safe guard against the far right.. It is an extremely powerful lobby group that defends the Consitiution.

As many understand in the US there are such conservatives appointed to Justices. These Justices are not elected, but are life. They are the ones that can supersede the laws and if they are conservative they will take the rights away from the people...putting them in the police and government.

This is why the ACLU had come together. It was to protect to United States Constitution as felt by the Colonies moving from an oppressed environment as Europe.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
What exactly is the view of the ACLU on spam?

That internet SPAM should be guarded as free-speech and anti-spam legislation is in direct violation of free-speech. Which is bullshit, since SPAM is an invasion of privacy.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
That internet SPAM should be guarded as free-speech and anti-spam legislation is in direct violation of free-speech. Which is bullshit, since SPAM is an invasion of privacy. Well, I guess they have a point in a way. They aren't sending it to your computer afterall. They send it to a more or less public email address kinda like how you get advertising shit in your mail. Sure annoying, but I don't know if it should be illegal.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Robtard
Since there is little conflict in 1 & 2, I'll bypass those.

Can I come into yor house and yell "God hates women" freely? Remember, funerals are private, not public.

Again, my computer is personally owned by me. Would you mind if I went into your car and set it so your stereo played advertisements of my choosing, over and over? I suppose you can, but this would take another view of "Rights of Privacy."

DigiMark007
I'm a fan. Say what you will on a issue-by-issue basis, but they protect freedoms better than any other group that exists in our country. And that's a very good thing.

And to be honest, with how polarized our country is, groups like the ACLU are the only institutions protecting our country from becoming a theocracy imo.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I guess they have a point in a way. They aren't sending it to your computer afterall. They send it to a more or less public email address kinda like how you get advertising shit in your mail. Sure annoying, but I don't know if it should be illegal.

Same thing could be argued for computer viruses then.

Robtard
Originally posted by Deja~vu
I suppose you can, but this would take another view of "Rights of Privacy."

No, I can't, since you have a 'right to privacy', which is what pertains to the Westboro and Spam topics. Stop being so Debbiejo'ish.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Same thing could be argued for computer viruses then. If they are sent to your email account I suppose. Though intending to destroying something and advertising your shit is different. Kinda how letter bombs are frowned upon, while the advertising for the local china place is alright.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
If they are sent to your email account I suppose. Though intending to destroying something and advertising your shit is different. Kinda how letter bombs are frowned upon, while the advertising for the local china place is alright.
No, no and no.

Rememebr those anpying pop-ups you'd get back in the day, after a trojan was installed into your comp? Now, they don't harm your computer per say, they just keep popping up and up and up, telling you about all the great deals on penis enlargement, porn or this awesome new anti-virus program. Still an invasion of privacy, as your comp is not public property.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Robtard
Same thing could be argued for computer viruses then. Viruses?

The ACLU is the protections of "ones" rights.

As it may be of computer virus's then that is anther new view of what is and what is not a

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
No, no and no.

Rememebr those anpying pop-ups you'd get back in the day, after a trojan was installed into your comp? Now, they don't harm your computer per say, they just keep popping up and up and up, telling you about all the great deals on penis enlargement, porn or this awesome new anti-virus program. Still an invasion of privacy, as your comp is not public property. Your computer not. Your email account on the internet is open to it so. Again, difference between your mailbox and your living room. If you bring shit from your mailbox in it's really your problem.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Viruses?

The ACLU is the protections of "ones" rights.

As it may be of computer virus's then that is anther new view of what is and what is not a STFU. You just cost everyone that read that 5 IQ points.

Deja~vu
Ones rights would not exclude advertising portrayed upon ones self. .

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your computer not. Your email account on the internet is open to it so. Again, difference between your mailbox and your living room. If you bring shit from your mailbox in it's really your problem.

SPAM isn't governed strickly by your email account. i.e. you can get SPAM from just 'surfing the net'.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Robtard
SPAM isn't governed strickly by your email account. i.e. you can get SPAM from just 'surfing the net'.

Those are viruses, however. The semantic argument between spam and viruses is fairly pointless. It's very easy for any of us to eyeball it and no the difference, as well as seeing how they affect one's computer differently. Saying that if one should be allowed, then the other has to be as well, is frankly a sloppy misuse of the slippery slope argument.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
SPAM isn't governed strickly by your email account. i.e. you can get SPAM from just 'surfing the net'. Fair enough. The Spam that goes on your email account should be allowed.

Robtard
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Those are viruses, however. The semantic argument between spam and viruses is fairly pointless. It's very easy for any of us to eyeball it and no the difference, as well as seeing how they affect one's computer differently. Saying that if one should be allowed, then the other has to be as well, is frankly a sloppy misuse of the slippery slope argument.

I'm not the one grouping them together, they are both classified as "SPAM". Unless you have some insight on this?

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough. The Spam that goes on your email account should be allowed.

I agree that not all SPAM is created equal, but as far as I know, it's all under one classification.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
I agree that not all SPAM is created equal, but as far as I know, it's all under one classification. I am not sure what this other spam you are talking about is actually.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure what this other spam you are talking about is actually.

SPAM

Though I could be wrong in my initial assertion that hijackers would be classified as SPAM, I need further research, though I doubt it, as I am never wrong.

Deja~vu
SPAM is the least of your worries. This ACLU if you look at their history is one of the only groups that stops the stripping away from the conservative parties that was in acted over 20 years ago. It may take another 20 to at least put our rights concerning court, true justice and impartial ways back in effect.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Deja~vu
SPAM is the least of your worries. This ACLU if you look at their history is one of the only groups that stops the stripping away from the conservative parties that was in acted over 20 years ago. It may take another 20 to at least put our rights concerning court, true justice and impartial ways back in effect. We understand that you hate conservative parties, but really, it all depends whether you want to be stripped of your civil or economic rights.

Robtard
Originally posted by Deja~vu
SPAM is the least of your worries. This ACLU if you look at their history is one of the only groups that stops the stripping away from the conservative parties that was in acted over 20 years ago. It may take another 20 to at least put our rights concerning court, true justice and impartial ways back in effect.

Your "Conservatives ad portas" fear-mongering is ridiculous.

I disagreed on certain aspects of the ACLU, of which I named four. Considering the hundreds if not thousands of cases they've covered that I don't have a problem with, I think it's safe for you to assume I am not out to destroy or discredit them.

DigiMark007
I'd make the same distinction as bardock concerning spam. If they're considered the same thing, then that's dumb and it wouldn't take much to draw a line between the two types, passive and invasive.

...

I know they have been opposing extreme feminist groups in recent years who want to make porn illegal, citing it as a loss of women's rights both during the making of it and also the viewing of it.

Kinda odd, since porn stars voluntarily choose to take part in it, just like any other business (women are actually much more highly paid on average). Not that I condone some of the more degrading portrayals of women in porn, but at the same time I struggle to think of one instance where public opinion was altered through freedom-denying censorship. It would set a dangerous precedent, imo, so I fully support the ACLU in such endeavors.

inimalist
Originally posted by Deja~vu
SPAM is the least of your worries. This ACLU if you look at their history is one of the only groups that stops the stripping away from the theocratic political opportunists that was in acted over 20 years ago. It may take another 20 to at least put our rights concerning court, true justice and impartial ways back in effect.

fixed

oh, and, as an institution, the ACLU is like all other institutions and inherently self-interested. No self-interested body is interested in YOU, unless you are aided by their ascension.

I'm all for freedom, but we shouldn't expect a political organization to protect us from the people we are stupid enough to elect in the first place.

Robtard
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'd make the same distinction as bardock concerning spam. If they're considered the same thing, then that's dumb and it wouldn't take much to draw a line between the two types, passive and invasive.

...

I know they have been opposing extreme feminist groups in recent years who want to make porn illegal, citing it as a loss of women's rights both during the making of it and also the viewing of it.

Kinda odd, since porn stars voluntarily choose to take part in it, just like any other business (women are actually much more highly paid on average). Not that I condone some of the more degrading portrayals of women in porn, but at the same time I struggle to think of one instance where public opinion was altered through freedom-denying censorship. It would set a dangerous precedent, imo, so I fully support the ACLU in such endeavors.

Despite how degrading some porn may betray women, they're willing doing it and being paid for it. So I don't see a problem, as long as said actions are not illegal.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Bardock42
We understand that you hate conservative parties, but really, it all depends whether you want to be stripped of your civil or economic rights. If so in all reverence do you understand that OUR Constitution is becoming eroded by the far right?

The Judgse that are elected for life in the term of a presidency as nil. Do you understand that the politics are really not ruled by the person in seat, but by a larger authority that they elect. One that is not impeachable.

chithappens
How many people are aware of the Second Patriot Act?

Deja~vu
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'd make the same distinction as bardock concerning spam. If they're considered the same thing, then that's dumb and it wouldn't take much to draw a line between the two types, passive and invasive.

...

I know they have been opposing extreme feminist groups in recent years who want to make porn illegal, citing it as a loss of women's rights both during the making of it and also the viewing of it.

Kinda odd, since porn stars voluntarily choose to take part in it, just like any other business (women are actually much more highly paid on average). Not that I condone some of the more degrading portrayals of women in porn, but at the same time I struggle to think of one instance where public opinion was altered through freedom-denying censorship. It would set a dangerous precedent, imo, so I fully support the ACLU in such endeavors.

Fear mongering of what, per Se?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Deja~vu
If so in all reverence do you understand that OUR Constitution is becoming eroded by the far right?

The Judgse that are elected for life in the term of a presidency as nil. Do you understand that the politics are really not ruled by the person in seat, but by a larger authority that they elect. One that is not impeachable. STFU!

inimalist
Originally posted by Deja~vu
If so in all reverence do you understand that OUR Constitution is becoming eroded by the far right?

The Judgse that are elected for life in the term of a presidency as nil. Do you understand that the politics are really not ruled by the person in seat, but by a larger authority that they elect. One that is not impeachable.

far right =/= conservative

the actual term is neoconservative, though I prefer theocratic fascist

Deja~vu
This I would suppose would be up the thought of intellectuals of what can happen to a country if not for a lobby group.

Can you give more than a stiffles set of letters to enunciate your views more clearly.,

In this Country we have a "Bill of Rights."

Bardock42
Originally posted by Deja~vu
This I would suppose would be up the thought of intellectuals of what can happen to a country if not for a lobby group.

Can you give more than a stiffles set of letters to enunciate your views more clearly.,

In this Country we have a "Bill of Rights." My view is that you should Shut the **** Up with your dilettant evaluation of political life in the United States.

Deja~vu
Why is that? Do you know much about this agency?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Why is that? Do you know much about this agency? The ACLU? I guess average. Probably more than you, or at least I understood what I heard about them. Why does it matter though?

chithappens
Originally posted by Deja~vu
If so in all reverence do you understand that OUR Constitution is becoming eroded by the far right?

The Judgse that are elected for life in the term of a presidency as nil. Do you understand that the politics are really not ruled by the person in seat, but by a larger authority that they elect. One that is not impeachable.

This seems off-topic

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Bardock42
The ACLU? I guess average. Probably more than you, or at least I understood what I heard about them. Why does it matter though? You've only heard about them? Yet we depend on them or are have very few options... to per-say then to do so.

One instance of law.

If one is arrested outside his home on at? It si becoming so now.. into this person's house? According to the 4th Armament is NOT permissable.. Yet officials that have been finding the words "Probable cause". it is not a true view of the Constitut9on....Using the words "probable cause"..Yet this law was meeeeeeeent for fire arms. and nothing more........but, now. going into anothers house. Oh, and what you find is what is going to get you..

In this instance, the Constitution was forfeited AND MAde NULL..

Until the liiberal judges along with the liberal parties...in the last 20 years...The laws most favored the people. Now with the conservative judges and like, the laws have gone array and favor the police and court systems. i. e,. GOVERMENT AND IT'S CONTROLS.

YEPPERRS...A FREE COUNTRY..

OTHER SCEINARAAIOS?

chithappens
Originally posted by Deja~vu


One instance of law.

If one is arrested outside his home of on other premises..Is it lawful to for them to come in without a search warret? It si becoming so now.. into this parson's house? According ot the 4th Armament is is NOT. Yet officials that have been finding the words " which is what is going now now..NO SEARCH WARRANT. it is not a true view of the Constitut9on. You must have more than probably cause the go into ones own house.



That's kinda recent but you would be surprised how they took advantage of this after hurricane Katrina in New Orleans

Deja~vu
How?

TRH
The ACLU is a good organization,I'm a semi member.

chithappens
Originally posted by Deja~vu
How?

Well, there are a lot of stories that have not come out by citizens of the city about the people being killed without reason.

Martial law had been declared but people were saying the authorities had been acting outside of reason.

I can not find a reliable online source to support this claim but it is worth looking into. (I read too many books sad )

Devil King
Originally posted by Deja~vu
What are your opinions on this Strong organisation? There are people that view it as against a harsh ultraconservative or moral institution. There are others that see it as a great safe guard against the stripping away of the United States Constitution.

If the US constitution were upheld and had evolved in the manner it was intended, there'd be no need for the ACLU.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Deja~vu
or are have very few options... to per-say then to do so.

One instance of law.

If one is arrested outside his home on at? It si becoming so now.. into this person's house? According to the 4th Armament is NOT permissable.. Yet officials that have been finding the words "Probable cause". it is not a true view of the Constitut9on....Yet this law was meeeeeeeent for fire arms. ......but, now. going into anothers house.

the Constitution was forfeited AND MAde NULL..

Until the liiberal judges along with the liberal parties...in the last 20 years...The laws most favored the people. Now with the conservative judges and like, the laws have gone array and favor the police and court systems.


OTHER SCEINARAAIOS?



I took the freedom to edit out the bits and pieces of your post that at least made somewhat grammatical sense. I find it funnier this way.

Deja~vu
I believe as a whole the ACLU is a good thing.

There was a case that involved a run away Judge, like many judges, went so far as to order a woman to have a surgical procedure so that she could not have any more children. The ACLU put that Judge straight.

Judges in this country are not to take it upon themselves to change laws, but to interpret them. The ACLU makes sure that Judges interpret them and not reinvent them.

Robtard
The Supreme Court intreprets and explains the laws.

Deja~vu
No kidding. That is supposed to be their job, and it's the final say, but it has become more of a reinventing of them. Judges are supposed to be unbiased, but that is not what is happening here anymore.

Robtard
Originally posted by Deja~vu
No kidding. That is supposed to be their job, and it's the final say, but it has become more of a reinventing of them. Judges are supposed to be unbiased, but that is not what is happening here anymore.

Can you give an example of the Supreme Court Seven being biased and reinventing the law?

Deja~vu
The Michigan Supreme Court sure has. Laws are based on common and case laws. They could be influenced by any case law presented. There are always 2 objecting points of laws when deciding a case and the judge picks the ones he feels is right (for him). That is biased. That sets a precedent.

Then new legislation can be introduced to make a change to the law that is existing, that is where some of the problems lie. Since many state representatives are conservative and most people don't really research their Judges but vote for the incumbent...Rogue Judges just stay in power. If someone else sees the problem and runs for the seat and loses, lets say an attorney, then his career is over in that area or county.

Of course there are strong lobby groups that influence what happens in the court room. One such group that actually sits in the court room is MADD. There was one case of a woman who after a night at the bar decided after she had gotten in her car that she shouldn't be driving so she took a nap in the back seat. To me I felt she was being very responsible, but according to the law, she had left her car keys in the ignition. When the police saw that she was asleep in the back seat but her keys were in the ignition she was arrested. She was sentenced to 6 months in jail, but with a work release and had 360 hours of community service. Now how can she work a full time job and do 360 of community service with in 6 months? Of course there's an out. She could pay the court 8 dollars an hour for each hour of community service, which of course she didn't have.

This is just one case that a law has gone awry. She is still in jail for trying to do the right thing.

It's all about money.

Devil King
I'm not sure I follow. The law actually addresses the issue of the keys being in the ignition. But the fact that she was in teh back seat should have clued the arresting officer in to her intentions. So, are you addressing the law or are you addressing the judge's motives for making his descision?

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not sure I follow. The law actually addresses the issue of the keys being in the ignition. But the fact that she was in teh back seat should have clued the arresting officer in to her intentions. So, are you addressing the law or are you addressing the judge's motives for making his descision? Well both actually. MADD is responsible for many tighter actions against people and as I have said they sit in court rooms to make sure that their agenda is being followed or they make sure that the judge could get bad press. Lobby groups are responsible for many laws or law changes as we all know.

In the case I was talking about, this woman is still there and not able to see her husband or child unless they visit her for 20 minutes twice a week. I feel this is an injustice. Then one must think, is this best for the family or the child to be estranged from their mother?


Maybe this thread should be changed to "Lobby Groups"...

MODS, can you change it to this please?

Robtard
As my esteemed above colleague has noted, this is more to do with the laws in existance, than the judge being malicious, biased and doing whatever he/she wanted.

If you're over the limit, putting your keys in the ignition is enough probable cause to assume you intend to drive. Fair or not, that is the law as it currently is. I've read of a similar story were a drunk only intended to listen to the radio while he sobbered up, yet he was hit with a drunk-driving citation.

So, how about that example?

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Robtard
As my esteemed above colleague has noted, this is more to do with the laws in existance, than the judge being malicious, biased and doing whatever he/she wanted.

If you're over the limit, putting your keys in the ignition is enough probable cause to assume you intend to drive. Fair or not, that is the law as it currently is. I've read of a similar story were a drunk only intended to listen to the radio while he sobbered up, yet he was hit with a drunk-driving citation.

So, how about that example? Judges have a spectrum which to go by in sentencing. So one must wonder why they would be so harsh. I believe it also comes down to the money aspect. More money to the court and county when economics are at the lowest. Well, they want to keep their jobs too, eh?

Pfft, probable cause. That is subjective. There's no clear rule on that in many states. And there are always exceptions to the law.

While sleeping in the back seat??

Robtard
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Judges have a spectrum which to go by in sentencing. So one must wonder why they would be so harsh. I believe it also comes down to the money aspect. More money to the court and county when economics are at the lowest. Well, they want to keep their jobs too, eh?

Pfft, probable cause. That is subjective. There's no clear rule on that in many states.

I don't know, maybe because drunk drivers destroy the lives of other people? Maybe? Possible? A chance?

Well, people tend to put the key in the ignition when they intend to drive, in fact, this is the most common reason why someone would insert key into ignition.

Edit: I can't expect that example of Supreme Court bias, can I?

Deja~vu
In the Federal Supreme Court cases there are 9 Justice's.
There is a ruling and there are cases that decide that ruling. Not all the Justice's agree, or some may but not on the stated premises.

In this case, I am speaking about State Supreme cases, not Federal Justices.


This is a new law and laws are always changed.

Robtard
Originally posted by Deja~vu
In the Federal Supreme Court cases there are 9 Justice's.
There is a ruling and there are cases that decide that ruling. Not all the Justice's agree, or some may but not on the stated premises.

In this case, I am speaking about State Supreme cases, not Federal Justices.

Is this supposed to be an example of bias, or more non sequiter?

As far as your "in the backseat" edit, she shouldn't have put her keys in the ignition, simple as that. The law is very strict and clear on that aspect when it comes to being drunk and in a car. Not saying she got what she deserved, but the law is, what it is.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Robtard
Is this supposed to be an example of bias, or more non sequiter?

As far as your "in the backseat" edit, she shouldn't have put her keys in the ignition, simple as that. The law is very strict and clear on that aspect when it comes to being drunk and in a car. Not saying she got what she deserved, but the law is, what it is. And when a law is changed that would effect you? Would you be okay with what you thought was right?

I can give other examples as well.

As far as I am concerned, she was doing the right thing. She was being responsible.

Robtard
Originally posted by Deja~vu
And when a law is changed that would effect you? Would you be okay with what you thought was right?

I can give other examples as well.

As far as I am concerned, she was doing the right thing. She was being responsible.

That is a broad question, depends on hows and whys. Also, do I get to vote on that change?

Proceed.

Well yes, I agree that at face value, she was doing the right thing. She should have been smarter though and not inserted the keys in the ignition, as the law is very clear on that aspect.

Deja~vu
Okay, here is another case of someone I know. There was a woman...geez why is it always women....LOL

Anywhoo, she is single and has 3 children. Her boys are doing drugs and have sold it from her home. She was indited for selling drugs from her home which is a felony. She can no longer get a job in her field as a teacher. If you don't already know, it is almost impossible to get a job if you have a felony. Well, she was taken to court and charged in that way and her eldest son was removed from her home (over 18) and not allowed to be in contact with his siblings. Later when she had some cheap ass job, she came home and found that there were many boys about the age of 16 all drinking and smoking weed in her home. Her son age 15/16 was sleeping up stairs. She wanted to do the right thing according to what the court might help with, soooooooo she went to court and reported this hoping that she would get some help. Instead of some help, the court charged her 500 a month or go to jail because she didn't know what was going on in her home while she was at work. She tried to explain that she couldn't pay that since she was going through bankruptcy. The court, however told her that she has to pay until the youngest is 18, otherwise she will have to spend time in jail. The court told her that she would get another felony charge.

This person was trying to work with the court, but in the end found herself a victim of it again.




She understood that she was too drunk. She wan't thinking about this or that. She wasn't trying to understand what the laws were. She was trying to do the right thing in the eyes of the court.

Robtard
She should have better control of her underage children, as the parents are responsible for their actions until they turn 18. Sucks sometimes; it's the law. Raw deal though, I agree, but how does this show that Judges are bias and bending the laws as they see fit?

That's the point, she should have been thinking and NOT put the keys in the ignition.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Robtard
She should have better control of her underage children, as the parents are responsible for their actions until they turn 18. Sucks sometimes; it's the law. Raw deal though, I agree, but how does this show that Judges are bias and bending the laws as they see fit?

That's the point, she should have been thinking and NOT put the keys in the ignition. My point is that judges are influenced by outside lobby groups. They may be better for us or go against our constitution in some instances. Many people don't understand their rights, but try to do what they feel is right and get penalized...and that is thanks to lobby groups.

There are some really good groups and some that are not. My point is that lobby groups influence the court system in many more wayw than the common person understands.

Lobby groups shape our judicial system. They put pressures on the judicial system.

What was law yesterday can be changed today and visa virsa. What was only a suggestion yesterday, I. E seat belts did become a law.

Robtard
Well, I'm thrilled you finally got to your point, and I do agree to a point. You could have done it 10 post sooner though.

As Inimalist mentioned though, the ACLU isn't completely a benevolent "just out to help the little guy" entity. It is also is a "lobby group"; it has its own agenda. Still, they are alright sometimes.

Deja~vu
You want me to do this in under 10 posts? Who do you think youre talking to anyway..........hahaha laughing out loud

Eon Blue
I've never heard of this organization until now.

From context clues that everyone has given, they sound like great contributing members of society that intend to uphold morality and values. Or not.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.