Stop Taxpayer Funding of ACLU

AMEN!

But, I bet you draw some heat!

 

I found your petition a little unclear. What is USC 1988 - does it refer to a particular title and/or chapter? It says it wants to prohibit fees from being awarded to any plaintiff in "Establishment Clause" cases - what does that mean?

I don't think you can exclude a particular entity from collecting fees because you dislike it.

Fees are only rewarded if the plaintiff actually wins, right? If you really want to keep the ACLU from collecting fees perhaps the government should not violate civil rights. Or get the organization that you do approve of to take up these cases, then it can collect the attourney's fees.

Is that petition meant to be serious or are you just having fun? I can't tell. The ACLU has not "declared war" on the Boy Scouts, the military, etc. in any of their public statements, so if you are serious you probably should delete obvious falsehoods. If you are just having fun, then sliming will probably get more reaction from supporters & detractors.

 

Isn't the ACLU a non-government agency? I didn't know the taxpayers funded the ACLU. I am confused.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, my thoughts exactly. The ACLU, afaik, is funded by private monies, memberships and such; with the work being done pro bono by volunteer member attorneys.

 

In other words, the court can award attorney and expert fees to the winner.

 

Is the point being made here that you want the government to be able to chose their own council in a lawsuit?

Doesn't anyone care about their Constitutional rights anymore? It seems as if people are more concerned about politics these days than what America is really all about. America is about diversity of opinion not about forcing everyone to think the same way you do.

 

To whom are you addressing this question?

 

No, the point is that when ACLU lawyers litigate a case, sometimes they win. When they do win, the judge may - at his discretion - award attourney fees. Bro. Curtis would like to prevent the ACLU from receiving any fees when it wins a suit against US, state or local governments because such governments are supported by taxpayers. He, as a taxpayer, wishes to pick and chose who gets reimbursement of fees and who does not.

Thanks, Dragoon, for posting the 1988 information.

 

No, the point is that when ACLU lawyers litigate a case, sometimes they win. When they do win, the judge may - at his discretion - award attourney fees. Bro. Curtis would like to prevent the ACLU from receiving any fees when it wins a suit against US, state or local governments because such governments are supported by taxpayers. He, as a taxpayer, wishes to pick and chose who gets reimbursement of fees and who does not.

Thanks, Dragoon, for posting the 1988 information. </font>[/QUOTE]"We, The People, call upon our elected representatives to amend USC section 1988 so that fees are not awarded to the ACLU or any other plaintiff in Establisment Clause cases . We wish for the Free Expression Clause to implicate at least the same financial incentives as attacks upon faith currently have."

 

I don't think "implicate" is quite the correct word there unless it has a meaning I'm unaware of.

Philologists?

 

The normal "American rule", as it's called, is that each party in litigation pays its own way. It's disturbing that federal law has altered this approach in this specific case while not doing so in a broader way for the many other cases brought before the courts of the land. It seems to have applied a form of "tort reform" in this case while ignoring others. It is an obvious way to help "pay the way" for civil rights litigation. It does not force payment of legal and expert fees from tax payer money but, rather, by the looser in the case. It has the effect of "forcing" some defendants to cave in to charges to avoid the risk of loosing and having to pay legal and expert fees.

 

I doubt that any or at least very little is pro bono. These lawyers are well paid America killers, funded mainly be a few well healed socialist doners, and a multitude of $5 to $50 well meaning but misguided people.

 

The following is from the ACLU's About Us page:

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding

 

The legislation allowing organizations to recieve large settlements (paid for ultimately by the taxpayers of cities, counties, states) was originally intended to help minority churches, communities etc. to fund lawsuits in cases of racial discrimination. The ACLU has taken advantage of the law in order to fund numerous, frivolous lawsuits such as the following;
*
The ACLU was given $790,000 after suing to nullify a lease between the city of San Diego and the Boy Scouts of America. A federal judge sided with the ACLU, ruling that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because they require kids to pledge an oath to God and promise to live a “morally straight”
*
The ACLU was awarded $156,960 after a judge overturned an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The amendment was approved by 70 percent of Nebraska voters.
*
The ACLU was awarded $121,500 after suing to remove a monument outside of the Kentucky Capitol building.
*
In 2001, the ACLU was awarded more than $299,500 after suing to overturn abortion regulations in Kentucky.
*
The ACLU was awarded $37,037 after winning a lawsuit to prevent a Loudoun County (Va.) from installing pornography filters on public library computers
*
The ACLU is scheduled to receive $135,000 from Cobb County taxpayers, after suing the county to remove warning stickers from the district biology books. The stickers simply read, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.”
*
Multnomah County Oregon taxpayers were asked to pay $110,000 after the ACLU sued them for allowing the Boy Scouts of America to recruit on public school campuses.
*
San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952.
*
This is, in large part, how the ACLU funds it's activities.

 

When they lose, they should be required to pay quid pro quo.

 

Right on niteshift.

 

This seems fair to me. The losing side usually does have to pay the winning sides lawyers.

 

When you copy verbatim, it is good form to list your source. This would seem to be: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=2859