ACLU files suit against Secret Service

[Ranger12 46]

ACLU is a waste of breath. This is one of the dumbest things they have ever done. Believe me when I tell you that the Secret Service has handled protestors the same for every president. The same situations happened while Clinton was in office (anti-abortion protestors, etc), but they did not seem to have a problem with it then. Just more proof that the ACLU and the other organizations are about themselves and do not care about everybody's rights.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98080,00.html

[TitanTiger 20,708]

ACLU is a waste of breath. This is one of the dumbest things they have ever done. Believe me when I tell you that the Secret Service has handled protestors the same for every president. The same situations happened while Clinton was in office (anti-abortion protestors, etc), but they did not seem to have a problem with it then. Just more proof that the ACLU and the other organizations are about themselves and do not care about everybody's rights.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98080,00.html

Sort of like how the ACLU was spearheading the court case to stop the California recall election because some areas have to use punch card ballots. Where were they last year (or the year before, not sure) when those same punch card machines were being used to elect Gray Davis? They didn't have a problem then.

[bammanmr 0]

I love it. Everything that doesn't fit the conservative agenda is wrong and dumb.

You people make me laugh.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

No, it's just that the ACLU is so biased, it's beyond belief. Yeah, every once in a while, you'll hear them taking up some case for a more "conservative" viewpoint. I think they do it just to have a token case here or there to point to and try to maintain some shred of credibility. More often, they pick and choose cases that always seem to advance a more liberal agenda. When the result is something they can live with (like, say, a Democrat winning the governor's race), then punch card ballots are fine. Now, faced with the prospect of a recall election that could give the governorship to a Republican? Oh my God! Those punch card machines are awful! Voters will be disenfranchised! It will skew the results! Time to get involved! Get the courts to delay it! Give me a break.

[Weagle98 119]

I want to know bammanmr or maybe tigeral how is it that punch cards automatically mean that minority voters votes will not get counted. This is what the ACLU was claiming in its suit with the 9th circuit. Isn't the ACLU in fact stating that minorities are not competent enough to figure out the ballot. I for one would be pissed if an organization that claimed to defend my interest filed a lawsuit stating that because I'm white I'm not copetent to figure out a ballot. Where were all the minorities when this came out? Why weren't they outraged?

[Weagle98 119]

In regards to the article... There is a right to free speech but there is no right to get heard. If the media wants to show protestors they know where to go.

[stoic-one 1,557]

The plaintiffs are the National Organization for Women (search); United for Peace and Justice (search), an anti-war group; ACORN (search), an advocacy organization for low and moderate-income families; and USAction (search), an advocacy group that supports universal health care and better public education and opposes the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts.

Nuff said.......

[Ranger12 46]

I love it. Everything that doesn't fit the conservative agenda is wrong and dumb.

You people make me laugh.

Again, the Secret Service has been following this same procedure for every President for along time. The Secret Service does not follow party lines and is only concerned about the safety of the President and his family. Why is it now that the ACLU wants to bring this up? The plantiffs seemed to have no problem with it when Clinton was in office. There is a good reason for the policy. Why would you want the people that do not like the President and his policies close to him? Nobody's free speech is being voilated. We all know that when it comes to protecting the President, the Secret Services does not fool around. You can be apprehended for just "jokingly" make a threat towards the president. So, again, why would you want a group that dislikes the President's views so close to him. The concern is not with those groups in general, but what one of the more extreme members may try. We all know that fanatics on both sides can and have taken things to far. Example, I am a big anti-abortion supporter, but I don't agree with bombing clinics. That said, anti-abortion protestors are now kept away from the building because of the harm that the extreme members may cause to others. Sad, but true. It has to fit into the ACLUs political agenda before the will get involved. The same thing that got abortion protestors moved away from the building, now they want to say is wrong for anti-Bush protestors. Anybody but me see they hypocrisy in that?

[CCTAU 3,369]

In regards to the article... There is a right to free speech but there is no right to get heard. If the media wants to show protestors they know where to go.

Excellent point. But me and my friends from NOW wanted to heckle the president and then kiss our lesbian friends so that he could see it. We want our rights too! It discrimination plain and simple.

tongue....cheek

[Weagle98 119]

:hug1: he he that funny

[Tiger Al 0]

No, it's just that the ACLU is so biased, it's beyond belief.  Yeah, every once in a while, you'll hear them taking up some case for a more "conservative" viewpoint.  I think they do it just to have a token case here or there to point to and try to maintain some shred of credibility.  More often, they pick and choose cases that always seem to advance a more liberal agenda.  When the result is something they can live with (like, say, a Democrat winning the governor's race), then punch card ballots are fine.  Now, faced with the prospect of a recall election that could give the governorship to a Republican?  Oh my God!  Those punch card machines are awful!  Voters will be disenfranchised!  It will skew the results!  Time to get involved!  Get the courts to delay it!  Give me a break. 

Here is a link to the original article. A couple of paragraphs that I think answer your immediate questions as to the 'apparent' timing of the ACLU's challenge:

Following the contested presidential election of 2000, the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit against California officials on similar grounds and won. The state then entered into a consent decree, whereby election officials agreed to replace all “punch card” voting machines in use by the March 2004 primary election.

But if a recall election takes place in October 2003, as many as 8 million voters could be at the mercy of the defective “VotoMatic” or “Pollstar” machines which use “punch card” technology, the ACLU warned. At least six counties in the state (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, Solano, and Mendocino) are certain to use “punch card” voting machines if the recall election takes place as scheduled on October 7, 2003.

It isn't as if the ACLU decided to promote the 'Gray Davis' agenda, but that since an election was to be held before the scheduled machine replacements, they felt that the recall should be put on hold until the machines could be updated. Seems fair enough.

It's interesting that you equate civil rights with 'a liberal agenda.' I think of civil rights as an 'American agenda' or a 'human agenda.' IF civil rights IS a 'liberal agenda,' why is it not a conservative one, also? Or are one's civil rights not in step with the 'conservative agenda?'

Weagle98, I don't know much about voting technology, but I would assume that 'punch cards' are an older and/or cheaper and/or less reliable method of computing votes. I don't think the assertion is that the machine 'knows' when a minority vote is being cast and will, therefore, taint the intent of that vote. I also don't think that the ACLU has ever stated, or would even think, that minorities are so intellectually inferior that they need help voting due to confusing punch cards. The counties where these machines are used obviously have a high concentration on minorities and the ACLU wants to help ensure that their votes are counted.

[CCTAU 3,369]

No, it's just that the ACLU is so biased, it's beyond belief.  Yeah, every once in a while, you'll hear them taking up some case for a more "conservative" viewpoint.  I think they do it just to have a token case here or there to point to and try to maintain some shred of credibility.  More often, they pick and choose cases that always seem to advance a more liberal agenda.  When the result is something they can live with (like, say, a Democrat winning the governor's race), then punch card ballots are fine.  Now, faced with the prospect of a recall election that could give the governorship to a Republican?  Oh my God!  Those punch card machines are awful!  Voters will be disenfranchised!  It will skew the results!  Time to get involved!  Get the courts to delay it!  Give me a break. 

Here is a link to the original article. A couple of paragraphs that I think answer your immediate questions as to the 'apparent' timing of the ACLU's challenge:

Following the contested presidential election of 2000, the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit against California officials on similar grounds and won. The state then entered into a consent decree, whereby election officials agreed to replace all “punch card” voting machines in use by the March 2004 primary election.

But if a recall election takes place in October 2003, as many as 8 million voters could be at the mercy of the defective “VotoMatic” or “Pollstar” machines which use “punch card” technology, the ACLU warned. At least six counties in the state (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, Solano, and Mendocino) are certain to use “punch card” voting machines if the recall election takes place as scheduled on October 7, 2003.

It isn't as if the ACLU decided to promote the 'Gray Davis' agenda, but that since an election was to be held before the scheduled machine replacements, they felt that the recall should be put on hold until the machines could be updated. Seems fair enough.

It's interesting that you equate civil rights with 'a liberal agenda.' I think of civil rights as an 'American agenda' or a 'human agenda.' IF civil rights IS a 'liberal agenda,' why is it not a conservative one, also? Or are one's civil rights not in step with the 'conservative agenda?'

Weagle98, I don't know much about voting technology, but I would assume that 'punch cards' are an older and/or cheaper and/or less reliable method of computing votes. I don't think the assertion is that the machine 'knows' when a minority vote is being cast and will, therefore, taint the intent of that vote. I also don't think that the ACLU has ever stated, or would even think, that minorities are so intellectually inferior that they need help voting due to confusing punch cards. The counties where these machines are used obviously have a high concentration on minorities and the ACLU wants to help ensure that their votes are counted.

Ahh, TigerAl. Just another in a long line of demoncrat brainwashed spin-doctors. The implied statement has always been that the people using the ballot are not smart enough to figure it out. But that seems to escape you.

[Tiger Al 0]

Here is what the ACLU thinks about this vs. what Fox thinks the ACLU thinks about this.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

It's interesting that you equate civil rights with 'a liberal agenda.' I think of civil rights as an 'American agenda' or a 'human agenda.' IF civil rights IS a 'liberal agenda,' why is it not a conservative one, also? Or are one's civil rights not in step with the 'conservative agenda?'

You make a good point on the timing issue. That's plausible. I don't necessarily buy it. But it's plausible.

On the "liberal agenda". You're the one making that comparison. Probably because you think that all the ACLU does is stand up for civil rights. I don't. I think they mostly stand up for liberal causes under the guise of standing up for civil rights. They sprinkle in a few cases here and there so they can look like they stand for everyone's rights. Mostly, they pick the cases that advance liberal viewpoints. You could say they advance a left-wing interpretation of civil rights rather than a more balanced one.

Weagle98, I don't know much about voting technology, but I would assume that 'punch cards' are an older and/or cheaper and/or less reliable method of computing votes. I don't think the assertion is that the machine 'knows' when a minority vote is being cast and will, therefore, taint the intent of that vote. I also don't think that the ACLU has ever stated, or would even think, that minorities are so intellectually inferior that they need help voting due to confusing punch cards. The counties where these machines are used obviously have a high concentration on minorities and the ACLU wants to help ensure that their votes are counted.

Actually, (and I'll have to find the links for you), recent studies from MIT and Cal Tech showed that the punch card systems didn't have a statistically significant difference in error/bad ballot rates from other voting systems. This is part of the reason the full court reinstated the recall...there was no proof that voters would be disenfranchised by using these machines.

[Weagle98 119]

Weagle98, I don't know much about voting technology, but I would assume that 'punch cards' are an older and/or cheaper and/or less reliable method of computing votes. I don't think the assertion is that the machine 'knows' when a minority vote is being cast and will, therefore, taint the intent of that vote. I also don't think that the ACLU has ever stated, or would even think, that minorities are so intellectually inferior that they need help voting due to confusing punch cards. The counties where these machines are used obviously have a high concentration on minorities and the ACLU wants to help ensure that their votes are counted.

www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/davis.recall.ap

A phrase used over and over again...

A three-member federal appeals court panel, clearly troubled by the prospect that some 40,000 voters might be disenfranchised by the use of punch-card ballots in the recall election, challenged lawyers Thursday to explain why the election should be allowed.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mark Rosenbaum, who brought the challenge on behalf of the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, said there are "grave federal interests" involving the federal Voting Rights Act and potential discrimination against poor and minority voters who may have difficulty with the punch-card ballots.

Why would their be discrimination against poor and minority voters when using punch-card ballots? Unless they believe that they are not competent enough to use the system. And the punch card system is used in "white" counties as well that is not part of the 40,000 number used in the ACLU's argument. Their is also NO data to back up anything that they are saying like that the punch card system has a higher rate of error... their are only ACLU's assumptions.

[Tiger Al 0]

Like I said, Weagle, I don't know much about voter technology. I've never used the punch card system so I can't speak to how easy or hard they are to use. Maybe someone here HAS used them and can shed some light on it. The guy in the article used the number 40,000 which leads me to believe that that is some representative sample of people (poor and minority as he said) who might have trouble with punch cards. You said before "Isn't the ACLU in fact stating that minorities are not competent enough to figure out the ballot." It doesn't sound like they said ALL people who are minorities 'couldn't figure it out,' but only this 40,000 that may have problems. I guess the logic is that some of these poor and minorities would have trouble with punch cards, due to being less educated(?).

It could all just be a red herring to get California to update the machines before the recall election, which may not necessarily be a bad thing since they were going to do that before the 2004 elections, anyway. Regardless, my heart's not really in this one anyway, so, you win!!!

[Weagle98 119]

I won!!!! I won!!!! woohoooo :roll:

[Tiger Al 0]

HaHaHa...your trophy will be coming by FedEx!

[Tigermike 3,427]

In regards to the article...  There is a right to free speech but there is no right to get heard.  If the media wants to show protestors they know where to go.

Excellent point. But me and my friends from NOW wanted to heckle the president and then kiss our lesbian friends so that he could see it. We want our rights too! It discrimination plain and simple.

tongue....cheek

I think I may be a lesbian, I really like women!

[Tiger Al 0]

That reminds me of a joke this older guy I know tells. It's hilarious because of the way he tells it, so it may not translate well, but here goes:

This guy walks into a club and sits down at the bar. It's shaped like a U and sitting across from him is a real hottie. He tells the bartender to get his drink and to give the lady whatever she's having. The bartender says,"Buddy, you don't want to mess with her. She's a real bitch!" The guy says, "Shut up and do what I told ya!" So, a few minutes later the guy walks around the bar and sits down next to the woman. She never acknowledges him. So, he says, "You're very attractive. Do you come here very often?" Without batting an eye, she says, "Mister, you'd better go away and leave me alone!" He's slightly taken aback and says, "Sorry, lady. I didn't mean any harm. I was just trying to start a conversation." She replies, "Look, I already told you to leave me alone. I'm a lesbian and I'm not interested in you at all." He gives her a rather puzzled look and says, "Lady, I don't even know what that is." So she says, "You see that young girl that just walked in?" "Yes, she's very pretty, too" "Well, there's nothing in the world that I'd like better right now than to take her home and have sex with her all night long!" The guy starts stuttering and stammering and begins to sob. "What's wrong, pappy, did I hurt your feelings?" He chokes back some tears and replies, "No, it's not that. It's just that...I think...I think I might be a lesbian, too!"

Anyway, when this guy I know tells it, it's really funny.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Being a political independent I see things somewhat this way:

1. The ALCU is not dumb in any way. It's the people they brainwash and use that are dumb. The ALCU used to be a reasonable organization but they have deteriorated into a worthless pain in the ass. Thye can't survive on donations anymore so they just file a ton of frivilous suits in hopes of wining a few so they can pay the staff and support their nerd leaders.

2. I am in no way a political liberal. Why not? Because I have found out they think exactly like the bammers.....totally illogcal.

3. I am not a true conservative because I've grown weary of the religious right for one thing. :ph34r:

[TitanTiger 20,708]

3. I am not a true conservative because I've grown weary of the religious right for one thing. :ph34r:

Could you elaborate on that point a little. "Religious Right" has so many connotations to different people. Personally, although there would be some similarities in views on social issues and even some theological ones between me and say Pat Robertson, I don't particularly agree with a lot of what he says when he interjects into the political realm. What does "religious right" mean to you and what do you not care for about it?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Titan....I'm not sure I can define what I mean in clear terms is a short space. Maybe "religious right" isn't the right phrase. It just seems that people I used to have total respect for (Fallwell, etc. and even Bill Bennett) have got to far into politics and I don't always agree with their statements. It's hard because I respect their right to get involved but then I get back to where is the line on seperation of church and state. I can't think of anyway to say it. The botton line is I still vote Republican 80-90% of the time. But it's kind of like I tell my wife, when the Republicans get it going and have success, they seem to get a bad case of the stupids, i.e., some of the things that the Bushes, Gingrich, etc., have done. But believe me, there is no doubt I still would rather have Bush as President than Al Gore.

[TrueBlue72 0]

This would be a moot point if we went back to the literacy requirement for voting priviledges. If a person is literate, he can vote on a blank piece of paper; he doesn't need someone to coach him to "pull the third lever on the right"!!!!!

If you go back to the constitution the way our forefathers wrote and approved it, there were many restrictions on who had the right to vote. Some truly are archaic and simply a sign of the times in which it was written, but others are an insight into human nature and reflect timeless judgement.