ACLU hits a new low...ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private...

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Bill O'Idiot was trying to call the ACLU the most dangerous organization in America today on his radio show.

Why are the neoklan repugniklans so fearful of the legal process?

In fairness, the ACLU is an odious organization. They happen to be right in this one case, but it hardly balances all the evil they do. Of course, they would be powerless without activist liberal judges who share their hatred of Christianity and abet their campaign to drive it out of public view.

Other than impeach a significant percentage of teh federal judiciary, the best way to control the ACLU would be to repeal the law that lets plaintiffs recover attorneys fees in constitutional rights cases. They abuse this provision to extort money from financially strapped local governments and school boards and coerce settlemetns that restrict religious freedom.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from John_Wensink:

It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

This is assinine.

Public bathrooms are to shit, piss, and, occasionally, throw-up.

Rutting in a stall in a public restroom should have no expectation of privacy. Not against the rutting, mind you, just don't expect it to go unnoticed and to not bring attention to you and your partner.

What's next? "An addict smoking crystal meth in a stall in a public bathroom has an expectation of privacy"?

Or, "the cops shouldn't have been able to arrest the suicide bomber as he was strapping on his explosive vest in the public stall. A Jihadi has an expectation of privacy, after all."

(I know already that TT2 is all for that Jihadi's rights v.s. The Man!!)

 

[Turok]

Hapa:
>Public bathrooms are to shit, piss, and, occasionally, throw-up.

>Rutting in a stall in a public restroom should have no
>expectation of privacy

Ahh ... I see. It *depends* on what one is doing whether there is an "expectation of privacy".

ROFLAO!! Hapa's privacy rule ... "OK boys, it's private as long as your doin' what I think you should be doin'. Now I'll be'a watchin', and if'n y'all do anything I don't like, you can expect that privacy to be history. Any question?"

JB

 

[acronym]

I guess i havent seen a "closed stall" as per the ruling.
If you can see peoples feet, throw a bucket of water over the top of the thing, reach under and set fire to the roll or any number of other gutless pranks, let alone see straight through the gap in the door, how the heck could you call it a closed stall?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Why are you so afraid of the legal process?

Has Christianity been outlawed? Have churches been closed? Has any Christian not been able to practice their religion in the privacy of their own home?

You would have the judiciary bend to the will of the regressives...

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

In fairness, the ACLU is an odious organization. They happen to be right in this one case, but it hardly balances all the evil they do. Of course, they would be powerless without activist liberal judges who share their hatred of Christianity and abet their campaign to drive it out of public view.

Other than impeach a significant percentage of teh federal judiciary, the best way to control the ACLU would be to repeal the law that lets plaintiffs recover attorneys fees in constitutional rights cases. They abuse this provision to extort money from financially strapped local governments and school boards and coerce settlemetns that restrict religious freedom.

 

[Madison]

Quote from armoured saint:

SEX? who forced sex on anyone? an 'overture' is a communication not a sexual act.

there was no actual sexual conduct. it is not illegal to ask someone to have sex if there's no money involved, in a public or a private place, nor should it be.

 

[acronym]

Quote from Turok:


Ahh ... I see. It *depends* on what one is doing whether there is an "expectation of privacy".

ROFLAO!! Hapa's privacy rule ... "OK boys, it's private as long as your doin' what I think you should be doin'. Now I'll be'a watchin', and if'n y'all do anything I don't like, you can expect that privacy to be history. Any question?"

JB

The real problem occurs, is when something happens they do like. No going back there.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Why are you so afraid of the legal process?

Has Christianity been outlawed? Have churches been closed? Has any Christian not been able to practice their religion in the privacy of their own home?

You would have the judiciary bend to the will of the regressives...

It's not a question of "being afraid of the legal process", it's a matter of Separation of Powers. The federal judiciary is granted limited powers by Article III of the Constitution. Those powers do not include deciding social policy for the country or abrogating our democracy. When the judiciary starts dictating social policy under the guise of constitutional interpretation, they forfeit the respect they would ordinarily be due. The result of 50 years of judicial activism is plain to see. Judicial confirmations now resemble elections, with a nominee's views on hot button political issues more important than his judicial qualifications.

The sins of judicial activism have really come to fruition in Establishment Clause cases. Practices that were common at the time the First Amendment was ratified are suddenly unconstitutional, based on nothing more than judicial edict. Telling a city they cannot honor the religious traditions of its residents is nothing more than substituting judicial fiat for democracy. Such decisions are owed no respect by voters.

When judges get in the habit of making up "law"in one area, it is very easy for them to do it in other areas. Soon, the courts are seen as illegitimate, responding only to those with connections or in political favor. Persoanlly, I prefer the scheme set up by the Constitution to that common in banana republics.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Blather.

Judges are hired to give their opinions on matters of law, that's what they do.

You don't like their opinions, so you want judges that share opinions.

Judicial activism is just another word the cons use when they don't like a particular ruling or opinion.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It's not a question of "being afraid of the legal process", it's a matter of Separation of Powers. The federal judiciary is granted limited powers by Article III of the Constitution. Those powers do not include deciding social policy for the country or abrogating our democracy. When the judiciary starts dictating social policy under the guise of constitutional interpretation, they forfeit the respect they would ordinarily be due. The result of 50 years of judicial activism is plain to see. Judicial confirmations now resemble elections, with a nominee's views on hot button political issues more important than his judicial qualifications.

The sins of judicial activism have really come to fruition in Establishment Clause cases. Practices that were common at the time the First Amendment was ratified are suddenly unconstitutional, based on nothing more than judicial edict. Telling a city they cannot honor the religious traditions of its residents is nothing more than substituting judicial fiat for democracy. Such decisions are owed no respect by voters.

When judges get in the habit of making up "law"in one area, it is very easy for them to do it in other areas. Soon, the courts are seen as illegitimate, responding only to those with connections or in political favor. Persoanlly, I prefer the scheme set up by the Constitution to that common in banana republics.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Blather.

Judges are hired to give their opinions on matters of law, that's what they do.

You don't like their opinions, so you want judges that share opinions.

Judicial activism is just another word the cons use when they don't like a particular ruling or opinion.

Wrong. Is it really too much to ask that opinions be based on the language of the Constitution? It is quite clear what the Drafters meant when they used the words "establishment of religion." It certainly had nothing to do with manger scenes or crosses on public property.