gilly54

I just read in the San Jose Mercury News that Dr. Newdow had to represent himself. No lawyer would take his case and the ACLU turned him down.

As it turned out, they weren't needed as the case stood on its own merits, at least for now. If there are any card-carrying ACLU members out there, maybe you should let your displeasure with their attitude towards this case be known. Or does some legal person here know why they turned his case down?

Gilly <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Toto

The ACLU has a lot of real problems to deal with, and probably saw this case as a loser. They did issue a press release supporting the outcome.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

gilly54

I wonder if the national uproar might have changed their minds, hmmm? I have come to regard the ACLU as America's bastion for the preservation of our rights. I hope I'm not disappointed...

Gilly

copernicus

This case was a loser. The question for the ACLU is whether they should stand on principle. Evidently not.

galiel

The new head of the ACLU has, in fact, changed policy to abandon the fight for freethinker's rights. And posters who accuse the ACLU of losing its nerve are correct as well. They have become increasingly more concerned with protecting their reputation (and their fundraising prospects) by only pursuing likely victories, than they are with upholding the principles upon which they were founded, particularly on unpopular issues like this.

I originally posted the following in March, on this board:

I haven't seen this noted elsewhere. As a long-standing card-carrying member of the ACLU, it pains me greatly to report this.

On the January 2, 2002 show of “The Connection” on National Public Radio, the host, Dick Gordon, interviewed the new Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Anthony Romero. The show was titled: "The New Face of the ACLU."

They discussed the role of the ACLU post-September 11 and Romero's new strategy of “reaching out to gun owners and religious conservatives” to convince them that the ACLU is “the last and best bulwark against the erosion of the Constitution.” (sic!)

The following is a transcript of an exchange between the host and Romero, transcribed verbatim by yours truly.
(RealAudio of show is available at: theconnection)

(Romero and the host had just finished talking about protecting the civil liberties of the Afghani prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.)

DICK GORDON:
You see, these are really big issues, and they’re really important, I mean, people are playing close attention. But, but then the ACLU in Northern California will demand that an elementary school take the words, “God Bless America” down, after September 11, and people say, “What?! What are you wasting your time on THAT for?!”

ANTHONY ROMERO:
And they make a good point. In the schemes of things, I have to tell you, Dick, it is probably is not a top priority for me. It has an important principle behind it. Everything we do take as a stand, is an important principle stand. But in the scheme of things, we have other very-very important issues that we have to attend to.

If anyone doubts that this represents Romero's new official policy, they have but to look at the ACLU's web site. On the left-hand side, there is a list of links to issues of concern to the ACLU. Note that every topic has been recently updated, EXCEPT the "Religious Liberty" page, which was last updated in late June, 2001-- which happens to coincide with Romero taking over as head of the ACLU.

Philosoft

Thankfully, Americans United is still on the case, so to speak. The head of their legal team, a woman named Khan, was on O'Reilly tonight. And the fact that the head of that organization is a Reverend is only going to help their cause.