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.
-
-
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 -
-
-
Sometimes you get legal precedent and more often you create a bit of fear in bad municipalities.
-
Well thanks for establishing that the terror attacks I narrowly survived were a necessary bit of fear in a bad municipality
-
Ya, that was wildly out of line for the ACLU and you know I wasn't arguing about that.
-
It wasn’t out of line. It was so in line with what they do that they applied a pre-canned formula with less than 72 hours preparation and succeeded
-
I mean, it was morally out of line and shameful. They didn't investigate properly and that's on them.
-
I don’t know how else to tell you that this is the pattern of behavior the ACLU takes with regards to bigots’ cases. They are almost always 1A cases with a pressing need for time that doesn’t allow for investigation, and they almost always jump the queue
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.