Comments on: ACLU Sues Itself

By: loboinok

loboinok — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:02:12 +0000

Lornkanaga…

I stand corrected on the “no signs in past” statement!

Nasty Little Man …

“Your amazingly weak argument reminds me of the Dover school board trying to say that the teachers had “input” in the drafting of the intelligent design statement.”

Which I am sure you would consider no different than the current debate concerning Bush’s wiretapping of “US citizens”.
The MSM and the left know that “US citizen” being refered to by Bush are people like this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/19/alqaeda.plea/ and have acquired citizenship to aid them in their terrorism, using constitutional protections.

As you can see, it is an older article. Do you see CNN or the left pointing this out now? Of course not!

As for the ACLU’s “input” “drafting” or recommendation, with this ordinance, it would not be the first time. Some months back we posted a article concerning the ACLU opposing a “Christian” school club, up in the Northwest I believe. They reversed their position in that case. I am trying to find it and will post it for you when I do.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:50:15 +0000

I’ve worked in politics long enough to know that “input from” doesn’t mean “helped draft”. More likely it means ACLU spoke at a hearing or submitted testimony or some such, and the governing body made its own decision.

One can read such euphemisms, of course, with greater or lesser generosity depending on one’s predisposition. If it were true ACLU had literally “drafted” the law, you’d be right it’d be hypocritical to sue. The devil’s in the details, though, and I’ll bet a closer, neutral look at primary source documents would show that the city did not actually follow recommendations reflected in ACLU’s “input.”

In any event, happy new year to you all, and carry with you until then my best regards,

By: Lornkanaga

Lornkanaga — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:38 +0000

loboinok–at the very bottom of the article you will find:
“Wetzler said many Johnson County cities, Prairie Village included, once prohibited political signs altogether, even at election time.”

By: Nasty Little Man

Nasty Little Man — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:01:21 +0000

First, the article simply states that the ACLU had “input” in the drafting of the law. That doesn’t mean that they approved of the final version and it doesn’t mean that the final version was constitutional. Your amazingly weak argument reminds me of the Dover school board trying to say that the teachers had “input” in the drafting of the intelligent design statement. The teachers gave feedback but what came out in the end is not what they wanted.

Second, I thought conservatives believed in things like private property rights and that good ol’ technicality, the Bill of Rights. Apparently, that’s not the case at this site.

By: loboinok

loboinok — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:43:05 +0000

“According to the article, political signs were once not allowed.”

I have read the article numerous times and can not find a statement that they did not allow signs in the past.

“it just states that the group was in on the latest review/change of the law.”

Which is exactly the point… ACLU drafted the law that they are now challenging.

By: Lornkanaga

Lornkanaga — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:00:44 +0000

Actually, I see this more as a “camel’s nose” issue. According to the article, political signs were once not allowed. Since they became legal, the law has been changed fairly regularly; it doesn’t state whether the ACLU was involved in previous iterations although I think it’s likely–it just states that the group was in on the latest review/change of the law.

By: Breezy

Breezy — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:18:49 +0000

Haha, doesn’t suprise me at all. Liberals are full of stupid suprises and idiotic mistakes.
A real work of art this ACLU is.

Love the blog Jay! Keep checkin’ mine out!

By: The Uncooperative Blogger

The Uncooperative Blogger — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:18:18 +0000

The Great ACLU Con
This one goes into the ridiculous pile! The ACLU helped craft a law that they are now fighting the law as a First Amendment issue.
Ok lets start with the law that the ACLU helped them put together.
From an article in the Kansas City Star:
Prairie …

By: bigwhitehat

bigwhitehat — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:32:07 +0000

Outstanding. This is O’Henry good Irony.

By: Alphecca

Alphecca — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:37:26 +0000

Meandering…
Because, you know, I lead such an exciting life. So here it is about one in the morning… Kipper at damnum absque injuria reports that Hitler’s pistol is for sale. Too bad he didn’t use it on himself when he…