Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 05/18/2005 4:53:35 PM PDT by Ellesu
In 1976, Congress passed the Civil Rights Attorneys Fee Awards Act, which was designed to encourage private lawyers to take on suits to protect civil and constitutional rights. The law provides that judges can order federal and state governments to pay legal fees to private lawyers who sued the government and won. The result has been a flood of civil rights cases in federal court. From The New American Feb. 2, 1987
It's an outrage that US law, passed during the Watergate era, allows the ACLU to collect attorney's fees for makework----Christian-hatng lawsuits it itself launches.
That means "values voters" have been footing the bill for the ACLU's launching a juggernaut to remove Ten Commandments images, Christmas creches and Christmas carols, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and because they claim they have a civil right not to see the Ten Commandments, a civil right not to hear the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, not to see a creche of the Baby Jesus, not to hear Christmas carols. The ACLU has collected a huge amount of our tax dollars in this left-handed fundraiser for the ACLU.
FReepers can silence the ACLU with a bit of activism. We need to insist our Congressmen repeal this abusive law that allows the ACLU to get rich on harassing Christian America. Congress must repeal laws enabling the ACLU's Christian-hating activities. Cut off the ACLU's funds and watch them disappear. Here's what we can do.
Under the aegis of the ACLU's Foundation---worth some $135 million---any number of financial travesties can be hidden. The IRS should determine whether the ACLU is properly accounting for all its tax-funded activities, whether it is inflating legal costs, and whether it is using tax dollars for the purposes stated. We need to know whether the ACLU is engaged in Enron-style accounting and spending practices.
REFERENCE SOURCE FOR ARGUING REPEAL TO CONGRESS
Apparently, when Congress contemplated the fee-shifting bill three decades ago, it never conceived that 42 U.S.C. §1988 would be used to secure fees in esoteric battles over the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The statute gives a court "discretion" to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in civil rights cases.
Study of the legislative history of the statute reveals that Congress intended this statute to apply to civil rights abuses, including certain race and sex discrimination cases, but not to arguments about whether Judge Roy Moore is allowed to display the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse.
During the deliberations on the bill, the Senate penned that "in many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer."[6] In the recent First Amendment lawsuits filed by the ACLU, the tables are turned.
Small school districts and municipalities can either defend lawsuits and risk paying the ACLU's attorneys' fees if they lose, or they can voluntarily submit to the ACLU's view of the Constitution.
Even if lawsuits over the establishment clause somehow fall within 42 U.S.C. §1988, the statute empowers courts with nothing more than "discretion" to award fees.
In these cases, one would expect courts to withhold awarding fees. Since this is not happening, Congress must take immediate action to clarify 42 U.S.C. §1988 to explicitly exclude lawsuits related to the acknowledgement of God.
NOTE: In order to spread this message far and wide, you may have already received this. Sorry about that.
Thank you for the ping! Please keep me on your list, if you would.
Will do.
I live in Tangipahoa Parish. My son attended Loranger High School. The school superintendent and I served together in the National Guard. I have some obvious interest in this matter and think that it is high time that somebody stood up to the Joe Cook and the ACLU and double dog dare them to do something to them.
As I have gotten older, whenever I hear that the ACLU is opposed to (fill in the blank), I automatically take the opposite position.
The ACLU is not about civil liberties because if it were concerned about civil liberties then it would be encouraging expressions of religious freedom.
Pelican 5
If you check the link remember to Freep the poll.
That's good, but if you attack their funding and counter sue them with big time lawyers with lots of resources each and every time they get crazy they will fade into the woodwork.
Excellent post, and the core of how these commie rats exist. I alluded to it earlier.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
"Now, the ACLU finally has found a jail sentence they support - for praying!"
bump!
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Jail time for those who pray and those who don't stop others from praying.
1. Cut gov't spending by 50% for a start.
2. Schools should be locally funding and locally controlled.
3. Separation of school and state.
4. The ACLU needs to be disbanded. It would wither on the vine were it not for all the money (TAX money) it steals by its constant lawsuits.
Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.
WHAT??!!
We'll have to wait and see what happens. I personally think the Republicans will back down. I hope I am wrong.
"Their refusal to comply with the consent decree should and must result in their removal from society."
What country are we living in??? Have we been secretly transported to the old USSR and not know it???
That's the problem. They aren't 'kooks' and should not be underestimated. The Nazis and Bolsheviks weren't kooks either.
I'm NOT surprised, one iota. And....it's gonna get worse, sad to say.
BUT! HA! Guess what? We can all freely pray whenever and wherever we want and the ACLU can NOT stop that.....heck, I just might pray FOR the ACLU! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.