• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU - Any opinion about them?

U

uncleray

Active member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
133
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It seems that, at least in my experience, whenever the ACLU is mentioned,
the words "nuts" or some other derogatory comment seems to be within the
same sentence or same paragraph.
So I wanted to ask what opinions you all have about the ACLU?
Just asking.
 
They are an unpleasant reminder to many that our constitutional rights don't only apply to people or causes we like or approve of.
 
Last edited:

They're a valuable and generally well-meaning organization, the sole purpose of which is to protect the civil liberties of American citizens of all stripes. They get a lot of bad press from certain segments of the population and usually, in my opinion, for bad reasons.
 
The right loves to pick and choose rulings made by the ACLU that they dont like but then ignore others that they agree with....
 
They generally do good work, and I'm glad they are there.
 



The ACLU was founded by an avowed anarchist, pacifist, Communist named Roger Nash Baldwin in 1920.He wrote that" dictatorship would be necessary while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done". He would have been a big fan of Obama.They pick and choose whose rights they want to defend and for the most part they are terrorists, illegal aliens, and child molesters (NAMBLA); while letting law-abiding Americans and victims of reverse racism fend for themselves. Will give examples if needed.
 
The ACLU is as unfair in their choosing their causes as anything Ive ever seen....they should be disbanded.
 
I dislike the ACLU. I think they pick and chose rights to represent and typically endorse the case of any militant atheist who is angry that someone has a cross in a public place or other moronic stuff along that line. I think most of their ideals are misguided and most of their stances on certain cases are wrong.
 

You'd be wrong, they fight for Christians just as much as anyone else.
 
The ACLU has done many things that I think are stupid and a lot of things that I support. They may go too far when it comes to small church and state issues (the WWI cross episode really irked me), they're pretty much silent on gun rights, and they focus on things that I agree with but don't see as civil liberties (pot legalization?). However, I think that the bad is far outweighed by the good. No other group has defended free speech, criminal rights, or marginalized groups in the 20th century as doggedly and effectively as the ACLU.
 
IMO (and only in my opinion, as I have not researched it thoroughly), the ACLU seems to target the cases or causes which will earn them the most noteriety and money. Hardly noble.
 
tessaesque said:
IMO (and only in my opinion, as I have not researched it thoroughly), the ACLU seems to target the cases or causes which will earn them the most noteriety and money. Hardly noble.
Click to expand...

money? they are not for profit.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The right loves to pick and choose rulings made by the ACLU that they dont like but then ignore others that they agree with....
Click to expand...

You could just as easily be describing the ACLU itself here.
 
right...but their funding comes from various souces, and only about 3% is from court awarded attorney fees.

FundingThe ACLU receives funding from a large number of sources. For example, in 2004, the ACLU and its affiliate, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation reported revenues totaling $85,559,887. Of that total, 87% was from donations and dues from the public, 1.8% from program services, including awards of legal fees, royalty income, and literature sales, and the remainder from investment income and income from sale of assets. The distribution and amount of funding for state affiliates varies from state to state. For example, the ACLU of New Jersey reported $1.2 million in income to both the ACLU-NJ and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation in the 2005 fiscal year. Of that income, 46% came from contributions, 19% came from membership dues, 18% came from court awarded attorney fees, 12% came from grants, 4% came from investment income and the remainder from other sources. Its expenses in the same period were $800,000, of which 12% went to administration and management. Smaller affiliates with fewer resources, such as that in Nebraska, receive subsidies from the national ACLU.[27]
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
NFP doesn't mean they can perform their functions without income.
Click to expand...

Most of their income comes from grants and fundraising campaigns, not legal settlements/damages awards.
 
Your Star said:
You'd be wrong, they fight for Christians just as much as anyone else.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with this. They do indeed on occasions. So this is my thoughts on the ACLU. They occasionally do good work and often times are wrong in the battles they choose.
 

So...without the high profile case work they would have a hard time getting a lot of that money, wouldn't you think? I mean, 46% of their money comes from contributions.
 
Aderleth said:
Most of their income comes from grants and fundraising campaigns, not legal settlements/damages awards.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I said. I said that the cases they pick lead to noteriety and more money. I didn't say the money came directly from the outcome of the case.
 
1Perry said:
I would disagree with this. They do indeed on occasions. So this is my thoughts on the ACLU. They occasionally do good work and often times are wrong in the battles they choose.
Click to expand...

They might not fight for Christians "just as much" as anyone else (I don't have the numbers on this, although I may do the research if I get bored later today) but they are definitely as equally willing to work for Christians and conservatives as they are willing to work for anyone else.
 
tessaesque said:
That wasn't what I said. I said that the cases they pick lead to noteriety and more money. I didn't say the money came directly from the outcome of the case.
Click to expand...

yes, they probably picked the neo nazi cases to up their donations. in fact, tehy also refuse donations on principle. i really don't believe they take cases for notoriety and money.
 
tessaesque said:
That wasn't what I said. I said that the cases they pick lead to noteriety and more money. I didn't say the money came directly from the outcome of the case.
Click to expand...

What I'm suggesting is that it doesn't make sense for them to pick cases based on the amount of money involved because a) they're not getting that money (or at least not much of it) and b) money from cases is not where their income comes from (mostly). It's not like they're a private firm that gives out quarterly bonuses based on earnings or hands out dividends to the partners. I also think it's a tad premature to suggest that they base their cases on notoriety without first researching all of their cases (which, to be clear, I have not done). I say this because the only ACLU cases we're likely to hear about are the high profile ones. The low profile cases don't make the news.

(Edit) Oops. I misread that. I see what you're saying. I still disagree for the reasons related to notoriety above.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
So...without the high profile case work they would have a hard time getting a lot of that money, wouldn't you think? I mean, 46% of their money comes from contributions.
Click to expand...

no, not so much. they take high profile cases because they are asked to, don't they?
 

I didn't say they take cases for the judgment awards. I quite literally just clarified that point to you. They take a case that is high profile because it will result in the ACLU's name being all over the media. They'll see a spike in donations thanks to the renewed interest in their organization. I really don't know how much more clear I can make it. I also never said that all of their cases are high profile, just that their motivation does not seem to be entirely altruistic.
 

I just edited the post you're responding to. I get what you're saying, but I still disagree, as described above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…