John's Issues with Liberal Judges and the ACLU

Submitted by Ken Watts on Thu, 04/29/2010 - 17:00

IN HIS ONGOING PLAN FOR A divorce settlement with "American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al." John J. Wall has outlined positions which would lead to:

  1. Dissolving the United States of America,
  2. Raising taxes on the middle class and the poor, and
  3. Cutting government services, like highway systems and Medicare,

So, reading on to his next grievance...

"You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU."

I get it, John.

You don't like some of the decisions which have been made by "liberal" judges, or fought for by the ACLU.

But are you sure you're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

You can't expect, in the real world, not to have some losses as well as some wins.

Can I assume, for example, that you and your "group" object to the following "liberal" decisions, in which the ACLU won the case?

  1. 1937: De Jonge v. Oregon—The government can't tell you and your "group" that you can't assemble peacefully for lawful discussion.
  2. 1954: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas—The government can't ban black students from white schools.
  3. 1963: Gideon v. Wainwright—If you're accused of a crime and can't afford an attorney, the government must provide you with one. (It can't just prosecute you without representation.)
  4. 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut—The government can't tell a married couple whether to use birth control.
  5. 1974: United States v. Nixon—The President is not above the law.
  6. 1978: McDaniel v. Paty—The government can't bar members of the clergy from holding public office.
  7. 2001: Kyllo v. United States—The government can't use thermal-imaging devices to monitor activities inside your home without a proper warrant.

In each of those cases, the ACLU was on the "liberal" side, and the court sided with the ACLU.

I really think those decisions were good ones, and I have trouble understanding why your group is against them.

Or does an organization like the ACLU have to only take positions your "group" endorses, 100% of the time, in order for you not to reject it?

Does your "group" really consist of people who would:

  1. Do away with Medicare and other government services,
  2. Raise taxes on the poor and middle class,
  3. Let the government tell you when you can assemble,
  4. Let the government ban black students from white schools,
  5. Let the government prosecute people without representation,
  6. Let the government tell married couples whether to use birth control,
  7. Allow any President, conservative or liberal, to ignore the law,
  8. Allow the government to bar clergy from public office,
  9. Allow the government to spy on us, in our own homes, without a warrant.

Because, that's what we'd have without the ACLU, without those "liberal" judges, without "redistributive taxes", and without those liberals in the North who wouldn't allow the South to break up the country just so it could go on enslaving people.

If this is what your group endorses I think it must be a very small group.

Just how much of our "land mass" did you expect to get?

But, moving on, you say...

"Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military."

Come on, John, that's some serious conflating, even for an arch conservative.

First of all, I don't "hate" guns.

I hate the idea of large numbers of unregulated guns getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have them, by which I mean children, gang members, criminals, and untrained idiots who end up shooting innocent bystanders (You know, guys like Dick Cheney).

I have nothing against hunting rifles, for example, in the hands of well-trained hunters.

It's true, I would rather not have a disagreement with the stranger in front of me in a grocery line, only to discover that he's carrying a hand gun.

But no one is plotting to come and get your guns, or to make all guns illegal.

That's paranoia, John, plain and simple.

I simply want them to be used in a civilized manner by people who have the training to keep them safe, and out of the hands of criminals and children.

If you can hear that, we might be able to come to some kind of compromise on this issue.

Nor do I oppose all war.

We liberals are not idiots. We realize that sometimes it's necessary to fight in self-defense—or even to intervene for humanitarian reasons.

I actually support the military, and the police.

I'm even willing to "redistribute" income in order to support them, which you aren't.

So, if your scheme to divide this country were to come to pass, my "group" (which is getting larger by the moment) would keep the police and the military, since you wouldn't be able to pay for them anyway.

Next: John airs grievances about Oprah,
Michael Moore, Rosie O' Donnell,
the homeless,
homeboys, hippies,
 and illegal aliens...