Then explain the current works of the ACLU GF, for example, protecting the protesting crazy baptists, but then suing the government to have religious-themed grave markers removed from military cemeteries.
They are carving a rather random swath of policy it seems. I'm not saying they're TOTALLY off the deep end, if you note the first paragraph of my first post I said they had done some good things, but they also push some very leftist agendas, and they certainly don't stay within constitutional intentions in many cases. I know the ACLU has done good things, I'll concede that, but the trend I see is like these:
Civil libertarian and former ACLU member Nat Hentoff has criticized the ACLU for promoting affirmative action and for supporting speech codes on college campuses and in the workplace.[50] Also, the organization's support for affirmative action has been criticized as disregarding the civil rights of those who are discriminated against whether in employment or school admissions,[citation needed] and others have criticized the ACLU more generally for preferring to focus on civil rights concerns at the expense of civil liberties.[51]
Although the ACLU categorically embraces a States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms, the organization officially declares itself "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."[52]
Regarding gun control laws, the official policy of the national ACLU argues that the Second Amendment is "intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government" and is not intended to "confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons." Furthermore, the ACLU states "The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership."
The ACLU of Washington State and the Second Amendment Foundation jointly filed a lawsuit[53] in November 2006 against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington State for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access gun web sites such as Women & Guns were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks.
As a member of the NRA, that should make you wary GF.
The ACLU's stance on spam is considered controversial by a broad cross-section of political points of view. In 2000, Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such: "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete."[54]
This analysis is rejected by many Internet service providers and system administrators as failing to address the uninvited costs of spam, which are borne by the owners of the mail servers that have to filter or handle it.[55] One legal comparison used in criticizing the ACLU's position is to compare spam to junk fax, which is illegal because of the cost of fax paper and other limited resources on the part of the recipient.[56] Spamming not only imposes costs on the recipient, but is most often sent through stolen computer resources, such as by use of computer viruses to send spam through home computers.
This debate found the ACLU joining with the Direct Marketing Association and the Center for Democracy and Technology in criticizing a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives in 2000; already by 1997 the ACLU had taken a strong position that nearly all spam legislation was improper,[57] although it has supported "opt-out" requirements in some cases. The ACLU opposed the 2003 CAN-SPAM act[58] suggesting that it could have a chilling effect on speech in cyberspace.
The ACLU opposes the use of Capital punishment, calling it "the ultimate denial of civil liberties."[60] The ACLU claims that the death penalty is unfairly applied to racial minorities and the poor, and considers it "cruel and unusual" punishment.[9]
However, as of 2006, twice the death row inmates were whites as all minorities combined.
Ok, you wanted me to quote what I find objectionable about the ACLU. There are literally hundreds more in the case log of the ACLU that I object too. The people support spam for god's sake! They take the side of any nutjob with a claim of free speech violations, whether the case is worth taking and presenting or not. They are judicially irresponsible, costing tax payers millions in many frivolous cases.
I voted for Obama. The apocalypse is nigh!