I know people get pissed about the ACLU defending bigots but they sorta have to once and a while to guarantee there's some legals precedent. Almost all the time they defend marginalized people instead but it doesn't get national news.
-
-
Almost no cases get to actual rulings in any of these cases. Everyone settles.
-
This statement directly contradicts your claim that the ACLU needs to take on bigots’ cases to establish precedent
-
There's a difference between the legal precedent and "we're going to tread carefully or we'll have to pay out a settlement again" precedent. They both value.
-
I don’t know what you’re arguing so I’ll make it clear: - I’m not talking about the ACLU defending marginalized people. I know they do and that’s good. - I’m disputing the claim that the ACLU needs to continue defending bigots to establish precedent. They don’t.
-
I understand that, I disagree with your conclusion. I respect it, I just don't think it accurate. I'm open to learning more but to date, that's where I am.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.