It’s fun to be the ACLU, you get to side with the Constitution no matter the net effect of your argument or position. It’s sort of like being a Tea Party organizer with an advanced degree.
So let’s see how the ACLU has decided to make news lately and see if it is living up to its mission.
Which, by the way, is “The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”
First, locally, they decide to take up the cause of some random Klan members in Union County, Georgia who want to clean up a highway. Of course, they could clean up the highway without getting credit on a sign, but that’s not really the goal so they applied to be part of Georgia Clean a Highway program. They were then turned down by the State of Georgia, setting up a battle for free speech rights in the courts, right?
Well, not really, since this exact case has already been litigated in Missouri with the Klan being allowed to clean the Rosa Parks Highway according to the Federal Appellate court out there, a decision that the Supreme Court declined to hear on appeal. So that’s pretty much the law.
So no problem, right? Surely,the ACLU of Georgia won’t take up the charge of a few North Georgia racists who want to have their name on a highway sign? They wouldn’t take the case knowing that the likely result is Georgia killing the Clean Highway program, right?
Wrong. The ACLU of Georgia and its limited resources will devote them to a purely symbolic effort with no legal result other than the likely dissolution of the Clean Highway program. Thanks guys.
So where else can the super helpful ACLU spring into the fray to defend someone that doesn’t really need defending? How about telling the Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel he is wrong about something he is obviously wrong about.
After Chik-Fil-A wouldn’t let female cows marry udder female cows or something, Rahm Emanuel decided to claim that opening a second Chik-Fila-A in Chicago would be a “bad investment”. In rides the ACLU of Illinois to tell the world that would be “viewpoint discrimination” if they denied a business license to Chik-Fil-A based upon the political statements of its founder. Really, ACLU? There is nothing going on here, the full statement from the Mayor’s Office
“He did not say that he would block or play any role in the company opening a new restaurant here,” Hamilton said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant, but their values aren’t reflective of our city.”
Whatever, really sugary lemonade is a national value in my book, but that hardly matters. Thanks, ACLU, for working so hard to defend what doesn’t need defending.