The ACLU is arguing the idiotic notion that if you have an expectation of privacy (which COULD raise fourth Amendment search issues depending on HOW the policy come by the knowledge) then the constitution prohibits making any act within that zone of expected privacy illegal persay. But this is even a distortion of Bryant, which did not find that laws against sex in public places are themselves illegal, but that the SEARCH in that case was inadmissable because it lacked probable cause or a warrant which is required when their is an expectation of privacy.

But in the Craig case, there is NO issue with regard to the search, because it was the police officer he actually solicited, and no matter how "private" a situation is, no rational human being could argue you have an expectation of privacy from the person you are approaching for sex.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

No rational person could of course, but this IS the ACLU.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Yeah, that horrible ACLU

Fought the suppression of Christians' right to distribute literature in Lovell v. Griffin.

Fought for the right to free interstate travel in Edwards v. California.

Kept Texas from having a "white" primary in Smith v. Allwright.

Fought to overthrow covenants that restricted home sales to "people of color" in Shelley v. Kraemer.

Fought for the right of a priest to give a racist and anti-semitic (anti-Jewish) speech in Terminiello v. Chicago.

Fought to allow married couples to use contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Fought to overturn laws that made it illegal and criminal for people of different races to marry in Loving v. Virginia.

Fought campaign spending limits as a violation of free speech in Buckley v. Valeo.

Fought to allow a Nazi group to exercise their right to march in Smith v. Collin.

Had the audacity to encourage women to fight forced sterilization for the simple crime of collecting welfare in In re Primus.

Fought to allow those people who had clearly expressed their wishes via living wills to have the right to be allowed to die in Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health.

Fought the ban of the display of symbols that "arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender." Translation: you have the right to display your crucifix or your swastika, regardless of your neighbor's anger, alarm, or resentment. Case: R.A.V. v. Wisconsin.

Fought to prevent the exclusion of jurors based solely on their gender in J.E.B. v. T.B.

Fought for the free practice of religion (via animal sacrifice) in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah.

Fought to allow the display of a cross in Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette.

Fought to keep the state out of your bedroom in Lawrence v. Texas.



Man. What a horrible organization!

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I haven't seen its brief so I don't know the totality of the ACLU's arguments. I simply learnt that was the case it cited for the expectation of privacy concerning an enclosed stall.

But IMO, Craig simply has no case here no matter how he slices the baloney. Putting aside the procedural barriers created by his plea and letting the appeal period lapse, he still has nothing on the merits had he litigated the issue in a timely manner. He pled guilty to Disorderly Conduct. A public bathroom stall is a public place, just one that has an expectation of privacy for its intended use. Someone who goes into a public restroom with the intent of peering into and disturbing and invading stalls used by others is doing that in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy in what and how they are doing that and it certainly is an offensive activity to those harmed by such behaviour that has no legitimate purpose. It's clearly disorderly conduct when applying those facts to the law under which he pled guilty.

What do they mean by "public" restrooms? Do they mean restrooms owned by the taxpayers and used by the public, or privately-owned restrooms in private establishments for use by customers/employees?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Nice list. First I would say that even a broken clock is right twice a day, and some of those cases represent ones where the ACLU actually got the Constitution right.

But the fact that you list such constitutionally appauling cases such as those highlighted below merely emphasizes my basic point. You clearly approve of the policy implications of these decisions, despite the fact that they have NO rational intellectual defense in the Constitution as written and understood by those who ratified it and the first nearly 200 years of our nations history.

It is the reason that none of you have yet been able to provide an actually definition for what constitutes the "right to privacy", which would enable any reasonable person to determine whether or not any given situation falls under it or not. There is a very simple reason for this--it is indefensible under the Constitution and is simply rhetoric to cover what it really is, the wholesale imposition of particular justices personal moral, ethical, and policy preferences in disregard of or often direct contradiction of the expressed will of the People in the Constitution. I could make just as "reasonable" an argument that the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause must make the progressive income tax unconstitutional...making different people pay different percentages of their income in taxes, and that a flat tax (which I support as a matter of policy) a constitutional requirement, and it would be no more unsound or dishonest than many of the cases you sited, for there is no less support in the text or clear historical understanding of the text for that position than those espoused in the highlighted cases below:


Lawrence v. Texas. - Sodomy as a Constitutional Right, ignoring the undeniable fact that anti-sodomy laws were common and not viewed by anyone having written or ratified the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as being inconsistent with those documents for the first 200+ years of our nation's history

Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health. - denying basic nourishment to a patient, hence arguing that suicide is a Constitutionally protected right as ANYONE would do if they stopped taking basic sustainence)

Loving v. Virginia. - This case should actually have been decided in favor of the plaintiffs on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, which required Virginia to recognize the otherwise legal marriage of the Lovings in the District of Columbia. Only Congress can legislate exceptions or exemptions to the Fully Faith and Credit clause by an affirmative act of law, and there was no such exception or exemption on the basis of interracial marriage.

Griswold v. Connecticut - where the ACLU convinced Justices to simply ignore the plain meaning and understanding of the Constitution and substitute their own vision of what it SHOULD say rather than anything it ACTUALLY says. The scope of the privacy right made suddenly discovered in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution after nearly 200 years were actually contradicted by the actions of the early nation, underscoring how baseless it it was.

Prior to that, you are talking about things that happened so long ago it is ridiculous to talk about them in the context of the contemporary organization that exists today (hell, that great legislator and democratic "elder statesman" Robert Byrd was still a Klansman back then!)

The damage wrought by the ACLU and other's who share their utter disregard for the Constitution as a written law with a fixed meaning absent amendment far outweighs any hit-and-miss occasions where they have actually been on the correct side of Constitutional interpretation. The fact that you highlight a bunch of cases

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I think they are arguing a technicality, Craig has already been sentenced in the court of public opinion, and no appeal can reverse that, the legal aspects of this particular case are just a sideshow.

If the ACLU succeeds, Craig gets his fine returned, and a meaningless conviction removed from his record, but there is no way he can ever stand for election again.

And like you said, every legal deadline has passed, so even if he had a legitimate appeal, it's too late.

But I think it's still an interesting intellectual exercise, to see if the ACLU can slice that baloney a few microns thinner, and force the Minnesota legislature to reword the statute.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Your view of the Constitution differs from mine.

Also seems to differ with history.

Maybe you're living in the wrong country?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Oh sure, as an intellectual exercise, I have no issue with it. It's actually how it works. Parties to a criminal or civil case have the right and duty to argue for their sides. Those having an interest in an appellate case can file an amicus curiae ('friend of the court') brief on behalf of a party who they would like to see win. Courts invite and appreciate those kinds of additional briefs because it helps them acquire more case precedents and insights for helping them decide a case.

It's up to the court to decide the outcome of the arguments. The ACLU makes arguments; it never renders decisions on them. Like everyone else, sometimes it wins and sometimes it loses, and sometime decisions are rendered in between.

That's normal litigation procedure. Even in my daily practice I make legal arguments on behalf of my clients, as do my opponents, and the courts make decisions. Win or lose, the decisions, if published for precedent purposes, are what adds to the actual corpus of the law beyond the case itself.

It takes challenges and arguments to determine such things. I've personally argued a large number of cases in my state and federal courts where I am licenced and practice. Like everyone else who find themselves regularly arguing at that level, sometimes I've won and other times I've lost and sometimes a mixed decision was rendered. Yet, in each one of the decisions that were published as precedent because they involved a novel or important issue in interpreting and applying the law, I'm proud of having been a part of that process regardless of whether I won or lost the argument because I know my case and the resolution of the issues involved in them became part of the body of the law. It's especially neat when I find some of the decisions being cited and adopted in other state or federal courts for their own decisions on similar claims, or seeing them make prestigious publications like the American Law Reporter for general legal studies and citation purposes across the nation.

The aclu has a place in the US, they have fought or attempted to over turn many injustices, I agree. I must add to that however, they appear, imho, selective in the decisions they make or not make regards whom to defend, or what cases they litigate etc.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Well, I wonder how much of that selectivity has to do with being asked to be involved.

Also, I think that there is a very vocal group of people on the right who are so angry with the ACLU for its positions on separating church and state that it makes a lot of noise that drowns out the positions that the ACLU supports that they would agree with.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Mine differs with history? Which part of history, the first 150-200 years immediately following the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or the period since during which activist judges have been discovering meanings in the Constitution not only never before imagined, but actually contradicted by the words and deeds of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

You have an myopic view of history. You are probably unaware that such baseless things as the Exclusionary or Miranda were ever a requirement under anyone's reading of the Constitution prior to this period.

Now, you may think that the Constitution is a "living" document that was meant to have its meaning changed at the whim of judges, but that view undercuts any legitimacy the Constitution would otherwise hold as the "Supreme Law" of the land. The Constitution is a legal text, it is conferred a meaning by those who give it effect (in this case those who ratified it and its amendments) and judges are bound by the terms of the document to that meaning.

Furthermore, if the Constitution is intended to be maleable in its meaning...on what basis do you argue that it should change in anything other than the direction of the popular will of the people? It is after all a document that begins "We the People of the United States".

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

If you want to live in the 1700s, you may want to try Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Clearly the founders intended the Constitution to change as society and its needs change. To claim otherwise is to call them stupid. If nothing else, the changes in English require us to re-state the meaning of the Constitution in our modern language.

Strict constructionists are out of touch with reality.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Of course the founders intended the Constitution would change over time, that's why they wrote Article V: The AMENDMENT Process.

Care to point to which part of the original text is now unclear due to changes in modern language?

You know, that position might be reasonable if it weren't so intellectually dishonest. You act as though society would fall apart without wise liberal judges ignoring the Supreme Law of the Land and instead substituting their values in place of We the People. But sadly, in most instances, the very cases you put up on a pedastal did not even lay claim when they were decided to being supported by the society they were supposedly being changed to accomodate.

Even if the Founders intened for the very meaning of the Constitution to change without benefit of Amendment, they sure as hell didn't intend to vest that evolutionary power in the Judiciary.

Finally, the most intellectual ignorant or dishonest aspect of your argument is that the Constitution must be subject to change to meet the needs of the times, is the fact that this is just the opposite of what liberal activists have done. They have made the Constitution we live under a LESS flexible document than it was intended to be:

Abortion: Before Roe v. Wade, abortion could be legal, illegal, regulated, or any of the countless variations in between. Now, NO flexibility, it is chisled in stone by Judicial decree that it is absolutely legal in ALL situtation.

Sodomy: Before Lawrence v. Texas Sodomy could be legal, illegal, regulated, or any of the countless variations in between. Now, NO flexibility, it is chisled in stone by Judicial decree that it is absolutely legal in ALL situtation.

But the paragon of Originalism (which is different from "Strict Constructionist), Antonin Scalia puts it best:

Or on the same general issue at CUA, 1996: