It is a historic fact that the federal Bill of Rights was intended to limit the Federal government and not the state. A controversial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court, who is part of the federal government, applied it to the states. They used the clause that states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” to apply the federal Bill of Rights to the states. The problem with that reasoning is that the clause is meant to overturn a conclusion by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case that was referring to the Article IV Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and not to the federal Bill of Rights. One other fact the court ignores is section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment which basically states that only Congress was given the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation and not the Executive or Judicial branches except in a supporting roll.

Thats the way they do it in europe. But not america.

Again, in the majority of lawsuits, the defendant does NOT pay the plaintiffs attorneys fees. Congress was just trying to help out the poor guy in getting Constitutional protection. But the ACLU has turned it upside down by blackmailing people – hardly Congress’ intent. Simply, its no longer necessary in todays world for the ACLU to take millions in every case. They, and other “civil rights orgs,” are more than adequately funded.

The whole point of the ACLU was to help people who couldn’t afford their own lawyer. If the ACLU takes millions in attorneys fees from the defendants everytime, then why DO people need the ACLU? Poor people could just get their own lawyer and HE could be paid out of the millions in attorneys fees each case. It makes no sense. If the ACLU takes attorneys fees then they have no reason to exist.

Plus, everything cannot always be black and white. The fact is, the ACLU blackmails small school districts, etc. into settling cases because the threat of litigation is absurdly high ONLY WHEN the ACLU is representing the plaintiff.

The ACLU should have to pay the legal expenses of ALL cases they LOSE

That’s not currently the case? I don’t have a problem with it. The loser should (almost) always have to pay the winner’s tab.

it’s nothing more than extortion…the law protects citizens from criminals.

Those are serious allegations, Danny. However, even if we presume them to be true, the correct course of action would be to prosecute the judges that aren’t doing their duty, not to strip away what is otherwise a very reasonable statute.

Hamid Karzai remembers 9/11 and accurately pinpoints its place on the terror timeline as before the Iraq war. This is a really great video (the part I’m referencing is about halfway through). I heard the clip on the radio and was simultaneously…