2
   

ACLU chastised by Federal Appeals court

 
 
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 07:04 am
source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,921 • Replies: 97
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 07:26 am
My hero!
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 04:36 am
It's about time that those idiots get what they deserve. Judge Bork pinned them down decisively in his book- Slouching Towards Gomorrah--when he wrote-P. 97---"The pure version of intellectual class leftishness, to the point of being a parody of modern liberalism, exists in institutionalized form in the ACLU"

This viewpoint is especially frightening when one realizes that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the malignant dwarf, was a lawyer for the ACLU before she went to the USSC.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 10:59 am
Now now now now. We must'nt abuse the poor aclu too much. After all, look at everything thing good they have completely screwed up by taking everything to an extreme.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 02:04 am
And we must never ever forget that the malignant dwarf appointed by Bill Clinton( At Hillary's urging ,of course) was the chief laywer for the ACLU- Ruth Bader Ginsburg/
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:09 am
This is a fine example of what the ACLU does for america. I find it rather humorous.
_________________________________________________________

Kansas man appeals ticket over anti-war signs
Associated Press

PRAIRIE VILLAGE, Kan. - A suburban Kansas City man is appealing a ticket Prairie Village gave him for homemade yard signs opposing the war in Iraq.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri is helping David Quinly appeal the citation in Johnson County District Court. Quinly sought the ACLU's help after losing an appeal in municipal court.

At issue is a Prairie Village ordinance prohibiting signs bigger than 5 square feet and limiting the total area of temporary signs displayed on a property to 10 square feet. Signs can't be up more than 60 days.

"It's clearly a First Amendment issue," said Quinly's attorney, John Simpson. "We think ... that the Prairie Village sign ordinance is too restrictive."

Quinly had been putting up anti-war signs in his yard since before the U.S. entered Iraq. He was warned two signs exceeded the size limit, but he kept them up, believing any resulting fine would be $20 or $30. After he was cited Sept. 20, he was surprised to find out the fine was $300, an amount he considers excessive.

Quinly said he understands why cities restrict signs, but he believes political signs should be less restrictive than others, not more.

Simpson said he will argue that Prairie Village restricts political signs more than other signs, which the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional.

"You've discriminated, in effect, against political speech, which is the speech most protected in our (First) Amendment," Simpson said.

City Attorney Charles Wetzler said issues surrounding temporary signs don't usually apply to commercial signs.

The ordinance says sign placement and size must be restricted to prevent them from creating traffic hazards. The sign ordinance also seeks to prevent "visual clutter" in neighborhoods.

"The law changes all the time in this area," Wetzler said, noting the latest version of the ordinance was drafted with the ACLU's input. "There have been new cases that come out, and if we need to look at it, we will."

University of Kansas law professor Mike Kautsch said it's not unusual for cities to limit signs for aesthetic reasons. But, he said, "If it's on a matter of public concern, the courts are usually going to be quite protective on the matter of a yard sign."

"The idea is to make sure these ordinances are clearly content-neutral, that they don't restrict a sign in any way because of the nature of that message," Kautsch said.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:16 am
Hey guys, did you have a nice Christmas?

I hope the ACLU didn't spoil it for you...
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:23 am
I'm looking at my ACLU card and thanking them for their efforts to protect my freedoms, yours as well. I wonder what the haters of the ACLU would put in its place. Do they think our freedoms can be protected only by means of military force in foreign lands? Perhaps McCarthyist hearings is what they prefer.
I strongly suspect that the ACLU serves no function for them because they do not really cherish their freedom, only their narrowly nationalist versions of "americanism."
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:30 am
JLNobody wrote:
I'm looking at my ACLU card and thanking them for their efforts to protect my freedoms, yours as well. I wonder what the haters of the ACLU would put in its place. Do they think our freedoms can be protected only by means of military force in foreign lands? Perhaps McCarthyist hearings is what they prefer.
I strongly suspect that the ACLU serves no function for them because they do not really cherish their freedom, only their narrowly nationalist versions of "americanism."


When the ACLU is champions protecting the "rights" of illiegal immigrants, I have to take issue with them. When the ACLU supports poeple breaking the law as in the above matter, I must take issue with them.

Once again, you extreme sarcasm make your post seem silly...which it is.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:31 am
Do you at least find it ironic that the ACLU helped create an ordinance and then turns around and helps to fight against the same ordinance?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:36 am
Trust me, my post was not in the least sarcastic. Do not try to dilute it with THAT charge.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:47 am
It's interesting. Now that Christmas is over, the right-wingers renew the fight against the ACLU.

Do you guys get your cues from O'Reilly each morning?

"Attention: Christmas is over. We are now renewing the campaign against the most dangerous organization in America. Act accordingly. That is all."
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:49 am
The most "american" thing I do is to support the ACLU's efforts to protect your freedoms.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:50 am
And I support the President to protect yours.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:51 am
Prairie Village, Kansas. That's hilarious! I'm amazed they didn't lynch him knowing the Kansans!

Anon
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:53 am
I dropped my membership with ACLU because they defend the rights of christians. An abomination.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:54 am
McGentrix, how blind you are to the reality of America's dangers. This president, along with his oil and political cronies, threaten our freedoms horribly.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:55 am
JLNobody wrote:
McGentrix, how blind you are to the reality of America's dangers. This president, along with his oil and political cronies, threaten our freedoms horribly.


Really?

How?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 10:56 am
You have to ask? I rest my case.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 11:03 am
Thanks for the opening, Dys. The Constitution's Bill of Rights protect the freedoms of Christians, Buddhist, Jews, Atheists, Taoists, Satanists, Islamo-fascists, and so on. This does not mean that such groups have the right to effectively restrict my rights. They can think and advocate anything they wish; it's their actions that threaten the rights of others that are relevant here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ACLU chastised by Federal Appeals court
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/20/2024 at 02:02:55