Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcome, ACLU

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#851

Post by sidlls »

deeth_starr wrote: post #821
sidlls wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think Hillary supported or supports Mexicans or Muslims? I mean, granted she used those groups as a foil to beat up on Trump with but as a rule her past actions (e.g. as Sec. Of State) indicate at best a casual (and in my view cruel) indifference to those communities.

OK. Are you saying Clinton = Trump? All I have to say here is I thought Gore = Bush. But 200k people died. So electing a president gets a little more nuanced.

No, I'm saying the differences, especially on immigration, aren't that great. They're far more alike than not. And to see Hillary supporters suddenly take an active protest-level interest in politics just smacks of partisanship.

Yes, I understand the argument is "so what if they're motivated by partisanship?" That's a facile argument, though, because movements like this require sincere dedication for the goal of the movement. If the partisans' goals aren't aligned with the movement's goals, then the partisans can do more damage than if they simply shut up and sat it out.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#852

Post by baconner »

alanh wrote: post #590
joshfraser wrote: post #427

I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consistency in fighting for the rights of everyone. They stick to their principles of free speech and human equality no matter how unpopular the issue or unsavory their client. A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of bla…

You used the passive voice, “the ACLU are being politicized right now as being anti-Trump.” The ACLU, in their official communications and advertisements, have been actively and explicitly anti-Trump. Witness their current 'pinned tweet' for example: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298 I don’t really mind that, but let’s not ignore that the ACLU intentionally earned their reputation as an opponent of t…

I think it would be more accurate to say right now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for. They're the static object in this equation imo.

They're not anti-Trump the person. They're against anyone who intends to ignore/damage civil liberties and Trump the candidate was pretty explicit about his thoughts there and is following through.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#853

Post by baconner »

grandalf wrote: post #823
bbctol wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the ACLU is by definition anti-government, though. Not in the sense that they want it destroyed, just in the sense that they'll always be the opposition to the executive branch. So they're "anti-Trump," but not in a way that's easily politicized; if any Democratic executives tried to punish people for being pro-Trump, the ACLU would be against them too.

> the ACLU is by definition anti-government I'd rephrase that as "in favor of the rule of law". Governments break the law all the time and need some form of checks and balances to correct wrongdoing.

TWISI the org chart of the US Government is basically the constitution a the top & each branch of government below reporting to the constitution.

Unfortunately the Constitution can't call up the president or file lawsuits on it's own so the ACLU takes it upon themselves to make an argument on behalf of the big boss.

So many business people who want to be politicians mistake the presidency for being CEO. The president isn't CEO, more like co-COO and sometimes a swift and loud reminder of that fact is necessary.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#854

Post by hackuser »

joshfraser wrote: post #427

I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consistency in fighting for the rights of everyone. They stick to their principles of free speech and human equality no matter how unpopular the issue or unsavory their client. A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of bla…

> While they're being politicized right now ...

That's long been true, though I'm sure sometimes more than others. I agree with what you say, but AFAIK they always have been associated with the left.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#855

Post by hackuser »

TheOsiris wrote: post #782
Miner49er wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so would you then be okay with a bakery not providing service to a wedding between two people of a certain race, because of their race?

What, exactly, is the problem with that? Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please. Should I be forced to cater to a nazi wedding? I think I should be allowed to deny service to whomever I please. And if people don't like it (as in the case of denying service to certain races) then they should stop going to that business.

> What, exactly, is the problem with that? Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please.

I encourage you to look up the history of segregation in the U.S. That approach works out very badly.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#856

Post by uabstraction »

User23 wrote: post #743
dwaxe wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally tell you. Border wall: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-c... One of dozens of articles on the refugee EO: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unco...

These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations. I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means…

"it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations."

I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is.

Starting a trade war with Mexico so we can say they paid for it though creative accounting will hurt our economy and cost the working class much more than a simple crackdown on employers exploiting illegal immigrants.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#857

Post by hackuser »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #719
rz2k wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a little glib, but this came up on Reddit from Twitter: > The left protest about Trump, but they're strangely silent about King Raedwald's invasion of Northumbria in AD 616[1] It's a bizarre way to argue in favor of being politically detached. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/5r6zw0/the_left...

I never supported Trump, but I can't find it in myself to join the opposition specifically because I don't understand them. When someone says "Why are you protesting Trump doing X, but not Obama doing X?" it's not a valid argument, and it's not a convincing argument, but that's not the point. If your answer is "well, when Obama did X he mitigated the negative effects by also doing Y, and did X in political climate wh…

> treating it as an insider secret only the smarter half of Americans will figure out, regardless of the issue or question, I'm left in the dark alongside the unenlightened Republicans.

The motives of the protesters are an insider secret? You can find them almost everywhere. Try the NY Times editorials, as a simple way to start.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#858

Post by matthewbauer »

hackuser wrote: post #854
joshfraser wrote: post #427

I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consistency in fighting for the rights of everyone. They stick to their principles of free speech and human equality no matter how unpopular the issue or unsavory their client. A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of bla…

> While they're being politicized right now ... That's long been true, though I'm sure sometimes more than others. I agree with what you say, but AFAIK they always have been associated with the left.

True, they are more left-wing than right-wing. At the same time, they support Citizens United which is usually considered conservative. So it's not so clear cut.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#859

Post by miracle2k »

lol214365 wrote: post #800
wfo wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Green card holding permanent residents of the US who were denied entry without due process are having their civil liberties violated. Everyone who was detained by CBP explicitly in illegal violation of the order of a federal judge had their civil liberties violated. Those parts of the order were rescinded because it was obviously illegal, but their rights were still denied. That's the easiest, inarguable example.

What procedural guarantees are permanent residents guaranteed under US law, that these people were not granted when they were denied entry, ie. what is 'due process' in the context of entry for permanent residents?

That question matters if you want to gauge the chances for a successful appeal in court.

Whether completely upending the lives of longterm residents without any prior warning is something that should be allowed to happen in a country is at least in part a moral question, and surely the ACLU is well within it's rights to answer that in the negative; nor, I dare say, would that answer seem very foreign to the average decent person.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#860

Post by fieldsy »

danielsju6 wrote: post #605
19guid wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Jus…

Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.

You don't give up rights just because you start a business.
Post reply on HN