Congress Cuts off ACLU's Access to Taxpayer Funds
The Congress did something great last week. It finally cut off the ACLU-lawyer gravy train by passing HR 2679.
Brummett grouses about this in his column, which is not absolute proof that it really is good news, but I'd call it mighty strong evidence for that.
You see there is a law that says when someone sues anyone in the government for a violation of civil rights, the government pays the fees when they win. This has been a cash-cow for litiginous ACLU lawyers, who have fanned out across the country for any wiff of someone being offended by the least reference to the Christian faith in a public place. This allows them to file a lawsuit, and -with the help of judges who are also determined to suppress religion under the guise of the establishment clause- get the taxpayers to foot the bill. Since the Christian faith is such a large part of our heritage, they found no shortage of targets. The taxpayers were stuck paying the bills for their own city hall and for the ACLU.
Now establishment cases will be excluded from the re-imbursement program. That does not mean that the ACLU can't sue in such cases. They can, but it will be on their own dime now, not yours and mine. The no longer have a financial interest in taking offense at the least display of religion in the public square. Now they can concentrate on cases where there is a real threat to our religious liberties, like the so-called faith-based initiatives. They won't get paid for that either, but maybe they can solict donations like all the folks trying to defend religious liberty have had to do over the years.
Brummett grouses about this in his column, which is not absolute proof that it really is good news, but I'd call it mighty strong evidence for that.
You see there is a law that says when someone sues anyone in the government for a violation of civil rights, the government pays the fees when they win. This has been a cash-cow for litiginous ACLU lawyers, who have fanned out across the country for any wiff of someone being offended by the least reference to the Christian faith in a public place. This allows them to file a lawsuit, and -with the help of judges who are also determined to suppress religion under the guise of the establishment clause- get the taxpayers to foot the bill. Since the Christian faith is such a large part of our heritage, they found no shortage of targets. The taxpayers were stuck paying the bills for their own city hall and for the ACLU.
Now establishment cases will be excluded from the re-imbursement program. That does not mean that the ACLU can't sue in such cases. They can, but it will be on their own dime now, not yours and mine. The no longer have a financial interest in taking offense at the least display of religion in the public square. Now they can concentrate on cases where there is a real threat to our religious liberties, like the so-called faith-based initiatives. They won't get paid for that either, but maybe they can solict donations like all the folks trying to defend religious liberty have had to do over the years.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Monday, October 09, 2006
14 Comments:
This is great news. I hadn't heard. Has it been signed into law yet?
I believe so.
This is great! It's about time the Anti-Christian Liberties Union stopped getting funds from tax payers.
Next, Planned Parenthood, then the National Endowment for the Arts.
YES, and when that is done, we can burn all the books and maybe even lynch all the liberals.
Roberto,
Why should the government fund liberal Godless organizations? No one is saying those organizations cannot exist but we are saying we don't want to pay for them.
Are you saying that the ACLU only defends the civil liberties of liberals? Last time I checked, the ACLU would go to bat for anyone that has their constitutional rights violated, even a scumbags like Rush Limbaugh or the guy from godhatesfags.com.
So are you opposed to civil liberties or are you just a dullard?
Rush isn't a scumbag. Just because you disagree with him you have to resort to name calling. Rush makes more sense and has more common sense than a whole room full of liberals. Rush, at least, has the ability to think for himself, unlike you liberals who rely on the mainstream media to be your collective brain. You people don't know anything!!!
I am opposed to liberal lawyers making a living by going around stamping out every public vestage of our Christian Heritage. I don't want to kill them for it, I just want them to do it on their dime not mine.
Liberals... pay out of pocket to push their agenda? Nahhhh!
Thievery is half the fun!
I don't need an organization who selectively defends civil liberties ONLY when it serves their Godless purposes to defend me, chrome dome.
I don't need an organization who defends the rights of pedophiles and terrorists to defend me and I'm tired of paying for them to destroy the traditions which this nation was founded upon.
You wouldn't know an American tradition if it jumped up and slapped you in you're second chin. It occurs to me that you would have a different take on the ACLU if YOUR freedoms were under attack and you had no protection against the most powerful government ever known to man. I doubt you have the abstract thought center to comprehend the possibility that at some point you might be in the minority and need some token protection from the tyranny of the majority, but hey it's worth a shot. The ACLU defends some deplorable postitions but without that buffer zone, who knows when your own thoughts or actions, which you consider normal, will be the ones under attack. I am just saying, put a little thought into it before you decide to tear it all down.
I'm not tearing it all down. If/when they want to go to court on their dime is fine with me. My problem is my tax dollars funding their frivolous lawsuits.
Freedom to view child porn online is not a right I'm concerned about protecting. The ACLU lawyers can all gag on gavels for all I care.
Post a Comment
<< Home