Senators Kohl and Feingold of Wisconsin and Senator Leahy of Vermont joined all ten Republicans on the Judiciary Committee in recommending that Judge John Roberts be appointed to Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
On 1, Oct. 19, 1976 Congress passed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which gave the Courts the power to award attorney’s fees in civil rights cases to the prevailing party. ‘The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976’ was passed with high hopes, and the good intentions that it would help provide relief for individuals that might not otherwise be able to afford the expenses of defending their civil liberties if they were violated. The ACLU, and other judicial activitist have completely turned the intentions of this amendment on its head.
Whenever the ACLU fights voluntary prayer in school, a war memorial because it’s in the shape of a cross, ten commandment displays, or keeping the boyscouts from military sponsorship, and they win, you pay for their attorney’s fees.
What was intended to protect people from having their civil rights violated has been twisted by the ACLU to use as leverage when they threaten small schools and communities that can’t afford to defend themselves from the well funded, and well staffed ACLU bully. Yes, legislation intended to protect civil liberties is often used to supress religious expression by the likes of the ACLU.
There is currently legislation in the House introduced by Representive Hostettler that hopes to remedy its abuse. It is an amendment that limits the attorney fees in Establishment Clause cases to injuctive relief only. In other words, if the ACLU wants to pick a fight over someone praying in public, or a ten commandments display that offends one sensitive athiest, they’ll have to dig into their own deep pockets, and it will not come from yours.
We want your voice to be heard in D.C. supporting this legislation. It’s really simple, all we need is your autograph.
SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER’S DOLE
This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. If you would like to join our efforts to fight the ACLU, it’s very simple. Just register at our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info you will need. Over 100 blogs already on board. Join us!
Crossposted at Stop the ACLU
Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post from Harry Reid (D):
Thursday, September 22, 2005; Page A24
The Post’s Sept. 21 editorial “Words That Will Haunt” made a fair point in criticizing one sentence of my floor statement on the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice of the United States. I said, “The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary.”
What I should have said is that the president is entitled to less deference in staffing the judiciary than in staffing the executive branch.
Of course, I agree that the president is entitled to a measure of deference in judicial nominations. After all, the Senate has confirmed more than 200 of President Bush’s nominees to the bench, including many who have a judicial philosophy with which Democrats disagree. But when the president nominates someone to serve as chief justice, deference does not entitle the nominee to a free pass. Senators have a constitutional duty to subject a nomination with such far-reaching consequences to heightened scrutiny.
HARRY M. REID
Senate Minority Leader (D-Nev.)
I’m sure that Mr. Reid would concede a lot more deference in choosing members of the judiciary if said President had a (D) after his name…
Via Bench Memos