Interview With A Former ACLU Lawyer - Comments Page 2

Author: JayPublished: Jul 15, 2005 at 10:35 am 29 comments

"For God And Country Forever
Surrender To The ACLU Never"
I had the benefit of getting an interview with Mr. Reese Lloyd, a former ACLU lawyer affiliated with the largest Veterans Organization in America, the American Legions. When I called the media relations department there and inquired about their support for Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 , this is the man they referred me to. I soon found out why. This was a very passionate, wise, and well spoken man. I first inquired of his history with the ACLU, how he became employed with them, and why he eventually disassociated himself with them. He informed me that he had worked two janitor jobs while attending law school. One day the ACLU did some kind of fellowship interview, and he was given an internship with them. He eventually went on to be on their staff. He focused in the area of worker's rights with special attention to the deprivation of speech in the workplace...such as whistleblowers.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

  • 26 - Maynard

    Jul 15, 2005 at 4:00 pm

    re: comment 25 - tangent coming

    As for Hannity. Were you aware that he made his bones in broadcasting as an announcer for the WWF wrestling organization? And that this upstanding advocate for tort reform and against frivolous lawsuits left there after receiving a huge settlement for his lawsuit alleging sexual harrassment?

    I guess it makes Lonewacko's point: trivial things do illustrate a point sometimes.

  • 27 - BillB

    Jul 16, 2005 at 3:04 am

    RE Sister Ray's # 24

    Pretty amazing that one would have to respond to # 18. Great response though. Said in three words what would have taken at least a well constructed sentence or two to convey.

    That is providing he knows who Rosa Parks is.

    RE Margaret Romao Toigo's # 20

    As usual I agree with just about all you say but I'm curious about the following.

    >And, because I find partisanship unseemly, I will point out that there are infectious carriers of authoritarianism on the far left, too. You know them, they're the folks who cannot seem to comprehend that the Second Amendment secures and guarantees our right to keep and bear arms and that it is just as essential to our freedom as the First Amendment.

    And some of those people are members of the ACLU! So, it is a good thing that we also have organization like the NRA to pick up the slack with regard to our Second Amendment rights.<

    I know you're attempting to level the playing field here but I have a question or two.

    First I'm pretty well left of center and know no one who believes that all guns should be outlawed. I'm certainly not saying they don't exist because they surely do but I would posit that they are a pretty small minority.

    Most liberals would acknowledge one's right to keep a handgun, shotgun, rifle or some comparable weapon for they're own protection.

    But assault weapons?

    Did you support the Bush adm allowing the ban to expire? If so, where do you draw the line? What about the 50mm rifle? A bazooka? Surface to air missle systems? A tank? A nuclear bomb?

    Of course it's illegal to privately own some of these and similar weapons already. Obviously the issue is where is the threshold?

    I believe the nra is out of step with the majority of Americans when we get to assault weapons and that the "far left" you cite is somewhat of a straw man.

    It should be noted that your cental point is well taken. The authoritarian nature on both sides of the political spectrum of those who (mostly out of fear, ignorance, self-righteousness etc.) can not see beyond their own narrow perspectives.

  • 28 - Bunny

    Sep 01, 2005 at 5:59 am

    BillB, the second Ammendment issue is a strange one, because it was settled by the Civil War. The intention of the founders was to allow for the citizenry to have the final say, not the politicians. The Federal government was to have as much power only as the Constitution allowed, and the citizens and States collectively had the authority and duty to enforce the arrangement. When push came to shove, Federal Government won, and States lost. It transformed what was originally the United States (sovereign states) into the United States (sovereign federal government).
    Most 2nd Ammendment advocates either don't realize that its a dead issue, or they want to re-arm the citizenry/states with the intent to establish equal power with Washington DC. The latter being politcal lunacy.
    I grew up in the South, but it ain't gonna rise again. Wouldn't be prudent...

  • 29 - RMcEwen

    Nov 04, 2005 at 5:01 am

    Bunny:

    there is a lot of truth to your comment... and, certainly, you've hit the main purpose of the 2nd amendment right on its head... but, inspite of the out-of-control increase in Federal power, we can STILL buy Guns, ammo... and even the superior shotgun shells that my friend sells.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 23, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs