No. The ACLU fueled that propaganda. They turned against their “core mission” because it was a lie; like all leftists, they only ever believed in power, and they were willing to say and do whatever granted it to them.
That case was one among many that established the primacy of Federal Civil Rights law over local law and custom. You may happen to agree with that ruling, but the end result of it and others was that a local government today has difficulty doing things like banning Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library. They may not have to fund it, but they can't stop it if someone else does. At least not without risking a lawsuit from this same ACLU.
Hell it used to be a trope in 90s television where police and right-wing characters would blame the ACLU for not being able to do something, either because they'd fought it in court or would fight it in court. A powerful position to be in.
To answer your question, they do it the same way they override freedom of association to combat "racism". Liberal principles are vague, so they promote some and subordinate the others to get whatever pre-determined outcome they want.
The ACLU setting up Federal Civil Rights as a precedent to break Federalism is consistent with a long-term aim to change the fundamental character of the nation from the top-down, which is consistent with leftist aims.
Changing one set of Federal laws vs. a patchwork of State and local laws-- which one do you think is the easier way to force broad permissiveness?
Trick question! You ram it through the highest courts you can as precedent, so the legislature doesn't even vote on it!
That case was one among many that established the primacy of Federal Civil Rights law over local law and custom
Never considered this angle. The power of the federal government is out of control. I think we really do need an actual secession movement . . . with teeth.
How come nobody can come up with any other cases of the ACLU defending free speech, if they supposedly are, or used to be, absolutists? They sure as shit did not come to the defense of the Unite the Right free speechers. They sure as shit, as the article notes, do not come to the defense of free speech at Universities.
No. The ACLU fueled that propaganda. They turned against their “core mission” because it was a lie; like all leftists, they only ever believed in power, and they were willing to say and do whatever granted it to them.
I like to think they were on the ball when they defended the Nazi march in Skokie, IL back in the '70s.
How can they go from there to defending the suppression of so-called "hate speech"? something happened along the way to flip them.
That case was one among many that established the primacy of Federal Civil Rights law over local law and custom. You may happen to agree with that ruling, but the end result of it and others was that a local government today has difficulty doing things like banning Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library. They may not have to fund it, but they can't stop it if someone else does. At least not without risking a lawsuit from this same ACLU.
Hell it used to be a trope in 90s television where police and right-wing characters would blame the ACLU for not being able to do something, either because they'd fought it in court or would fight it in court. A powerful position to be in.
To answer your question, they do it the same way they override freedom of association to combat "racism". Liberal principles are vague, so they promote some and subordinate the others to get whatever pre-determined outcome they want.
This type of context is most useful.
The ACLU setting up Federal Civil Rights as a precedent to break Federalism is consistent with a long-term aim to change the fundamental character of the nation from the top-down, which is consistent with leftist aims.
Changing one set of Federal laws vs. a patchwork of State and local laws-- which one do you think is the easier way to force broad permissiveness?
Trick question! You ram it through the highest courts you can as precedent, so the legislature doesn't even vote on it!
Never considered this angle. The power of the federal government is out of control. I think we really do need an actual secession movement . . . with teeth.
How come nobody can come up with any other cases of the ACLU defending free speech, if they supposedly are, or used to be, absolutists? They sure as shit did not come to the defense of the Unite the Right free speechers. They sure as shit, as the article notes, do not come to the defense of free speech at Universities.