Part-Time Pundit: StopTheACLU: Exactly Which Civil Liberties Are Important?

« The Unasked Question about the Plame Affair | Main | There Comes a Point Where Gun Laws Should Be Disobeyed »

July 14, 2005

StopTheACLU: Exactly Which Civil Liberties Are Important?

As everyone knows, there is an opening on the Supreme Court. As some might not know, I'm a candidate for the opening. But since this is Thursday, and I've punked out on Stop the ACLU posts for awhile, I thought I'd do an ACLU post.

You can see the ACLU's pages on the Supreme Court here and here. They go on to suggest that all our civil liberties are going away if Bush gets to choose the nominee as the Constitution suggests. t first, I wasn't sure what country they were talking about as I don't know anyone grabbed out of the home in the middle of the night, I've not seen tanks patrolling the streets, and I don't recall getting guidelines of what is acceptable speech (at least not from the Right).

What I find telling is that no where does the ACLU seem to care about the Kelo decision, which is where the Supreme Court recently decided that if a city government wants to give your house to someone else in the name of "economics" it can. While the town still has to pay you, ultimately the government can now decide who can live where with the prime real estate going to those who have money and/or are politically connected.

The ACLU's Supreme Court page makes no note of this huge issue but instead talks about civil liberties in an eccletic bunch of cases having to do with miscellaneous provisions in state or federal code. Pardon me, but isn't the right to own property at the very core of our civil liberties? Sure, having restraining orders enforced is all fine and good, but the government having the ability to throw you out of your home to give it to someone richer strikes me as a much more important issue as it effects every single person in this country, MOST ESPECIALLY the poor. If we want to get a position on an issue for a future nominee (which, by the way is unethical because any time a judge prejudges a case he may have to recuse from future cases. i.e. asking a judge where he stands on abortion may force that judge to never be able to rule on abortion cases) it might by a position on the Kelo case.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU, and register. I will then send you an email requesting the additional information that we need to add your blog to the blogroll. If you don’t have a blog and wish to start one, we have the ability to host your blog for you. Or we can assist you on finding a host that fits your needs. Registering with Protest The ACLU will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members, who have not registered, please do so. There are additional advantages and features that will be available for you there…you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Some of The Sites Already on Board:

21st Century Paladin

A Lady’s Ruminations

A Tic In The Mind’s Eye

American Dinosaur

American Warmonger

An American Housewife

**And Rightly So

Angry Republican Mom

Birth of a Neo-Con

Blog Talker

**California Conservatives 4 Truth