On the second half of your post, I think it is frivolous because there are so many important things we SHOULD be discussing at the Supreme Court level and yet we seem to be focused on stupid things like the pledge of allegiance and the ten commandments. Doesn't the ACLU have anything better to do than to worry about stupid shit like that? Why don't they focus on real issues like the status of non-combatant detainees, the lawful extent of wire-tapping, war powers on civilian surveillance, government perusal of private mail from overseas?
Why would a working attorney take the case? Most attorneys are working to get paid. The ACLU does on pro bono work for cases where no money will exchange hands.
As for the other potential cases you mention, who says they won't get involved?
Those are the issues that fundamentally impact citizen's rights and we should be debating how much of those freedoms we are willing to give up in a time of war and what the limits we should place on those things.
I don't agree that we should be debating such an issue. We are not at war. If you consider Iraq a real war and think that our freedoms should be curtailed during such wars, then our freedoms would be curtailed most of the time. For many of us, that would be intolerable.
For instance, I'd like to see aggressive war time capabilities put in place, but with time limits on them which Congress must vote on every 3 or 6 months. Anyway, that seems more important to me than worrying about whether the courtroom has Ten Commandments up on the wall, which by the way are a good set of rules to live by for any person of any religion.
I don't understand. Its the religious right that is preoccupied with hanging religious artifacts in public buildings. This nation has a tradition of separating church and state, and yet, they want to change that tradition. Speak to them and get them to chill. And while you are at it, have them put a sock in Robertson's mouth. |
