We Don’t Say Criminals, We Say Errants
Here’s a good one from the Rocky Mountain News.
In a lawsuit, the ACLU claimed that Colorado state law denying paroled prisoners the right to vote was unconstitutional, and argued that the Colorado Constitution provided that convicted criminals only lose their right to vote while they are incarcerated, but not after they are released on parole. A Denver district judge dismissed the lawsuit.
State law says that no one who is serving a sentence should be allowed to vote and parole is part of the sentence.
However, the best part is not the usual shenanigans of the ACLU shysters taking up the banner of felons, pedophiles and pornographers, it is another group involved in the case. “We’re very disappointed,” said Dianne Tramutola-Lawson, chairwoman of Colorado CURE.
Any idea what CURE stands for? It’s an acronym for Citizens United for Rehabilitation for Errants. Errants!??? Here’s another leftwing euphemism meant to turn convicted criminals magically into people who have merely strayed out of bounds and simply deviate from the standard. What a crock of horse manure.
Let’s see what happens when the ACLU appeals.
Crossposted from Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
Email This
Posted by Bob on June 2, 2006 5:30 pm
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL:
Comments
4 Responses to “We Don’t Say Criminals, We Say Errants”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I am not surprised the ACLU would be so bold as to re-enfranchise criminals. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry tried to slide a federal bill through to accomplish the same thing. If the Democrats and the ACLU cannot rush their version of morality through the legislation they are attempting to use the courts.
I had a dog named CURF.
Out of curiosity who believes that either evolution of intelligent design were taught in public financed schools at the time the First Amendment became law? I am fairly sure they taught creationism those sill law breakers did not know what the amendments they approved really meant. What dullards. On the other hand maybe our federal judges are so arrogant they think they have the right to change the constitution at will.
“They just ask politely that all of America view morality through a 2,000-year-old sectarian lens,”
As opposed to a “progressive” lens that sees baby-killing and socialism as good old American value? You betcha.
“Out of curiosity who believes that either evolution of intelligent design were taught in public financed schools at the time the First Amendment became law?”
The exact question I was thinking. Funny how liberals interpret the Constitution differently than the actual Framers who had written it.