At the
Eagle Forum session, lawyers discussed the need for a stronger focus on activist judges and the role the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) plays in breaking down traditional American society through lawsuits.
Schlafly, who has been an ardent anti-pornography activist, began the session in celebration of the Supreme CourtÂ’s first anti-porn decision since the 1960s, which said individuals can receive criminal penalties for promoting child pornography.
“The disappointing thing is that the government thinks that whatever some judge says is the law of the land,” said Schlafly. “It’s unfortunate that people think that judges are the royalty of our era.”
Steve Aden of the Alliance Defense Fund kicked off the morning with criticism of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which he classified as creating a “whole new class of thought crimes.”
“This bill would outlaw hateful thoughts against the ACLU’s preferred class of victims”, said Aden, adding that the ACLU is only a “leading advocate for moral lawlessness.”
In recent years, the ACLU has litigated to uphold the rights of minors to receive abortions without parental consent and fought for legalizing prostitution and the “right” to distribute obscene material without penalty. Aden charged that if the ACLU had its way, “America’s cities and towns would become red light districts.”
Sarah Seitz, legal director for the Liberty Center for Law and Policy at the Liberty University School of Law, expanded on some of the ACLU’s recent and outrageous cases, including the Veterans’ Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2007. That Act amends U.S. statutes in a way that fails to protect constitutional expression of religion by state and local officials and allows people to seek damages and attorney’s fees. Seitz said, the bill essentially mandates that “someone can claim they are merely offended by sight of cross or allege a religious infraction based on an offense.”
In Relands, California, there is a pending ACLU case regarding the placement of a small cross on the city logo. In another case, a plaintiff is seeking $325,000 in a racial profiling suit and a high school junior sued his school for $32,500 after he was scolded for refusing to stand during the Pledge of Allegience.
She said the ACLU is able to intimidate groups into doing what they want because of the fear of the high cost of litigation that the ACLU can bring. In these civil rights or discrimination cases, a fee shifting statute exists where the losing party must pay the winning partyÂ’s fees. Many of the towns and organizations ACLU targets are relatively small. They cannot fund millions of dollars in litigation, or risk the potential losses. ACLU, which is funded by huge liberal donations (even from some companies who fear it) has no fear of losing, especially in cases brought in liberal courts.
The fee shifting statute gives majorly unbalanced favor toward the ACLU and without solid, constitutionalist judges in place,
they will continue winning cases that encourage the breakdown of traditional values and constitutional rights.
k: