Untitled Document

(Click on one of the justices above to learn more about that particular justice)

Born: March 11, 1936 in Trenton, NJ
Nominated by: President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court; took oath of office September 26, 1986.
Other: Jealously protective of his privacy, Scalia formerly barred (or at least, severely restricted) the electronic media from recording his public speaking engagements, citing his "First Amendment right not to speak on the radio or television when I do not wish to do so".

In April 2004, at a Scalia speech in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube, acting as security detail, confiscated the audio tape of a reporter covering the event. After some controversy over the incident, Scalia apologized and stated he did not order the Marshal to do so. He has since amended his policy so that print reporters are now allowed to record his speeches to "promote accurate reporting", and recently, he appears to be relaxing the electronic media stricture also; at least two of his recent speeches have been covered by CSPAN.

Born: March 15, 1933, in Brooklyn, New York
Nominated by: President Carter to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; took oath of office June 30, 1980. Nominated by President Clinton as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; took oath of office August 10, 1993.
What You Should Know About This Justice: In 1972, the ACLU picked Ginsburg to head the historic Women's Rights Project, where she argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court. She was general counsel of the ACLU from 1973 to 1980 and sat on its National Board of Directors from 1974 to 1980. In fact, to most of the women reading this now - you owe half of your rights and freedoms as a female to this "liberal" justice. Look it up.

Born: April 20, 1920 in Chicago, Illinois
Nominated by: President Ford as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on December 1, 1975; confirmed by the United States Senate on December 17, 1975; and took oath of office on December 19, 1975.
What You Should Know About This Justice: Early in his tenure Stevens ostensibly took a moderate path, though he voted to reinstate capital punishment in the United States and early on, voted against affirmative action. Now that the court leans more to the Right, he seems like more of a progressive justice by comparison, but not by definition.

Born: September 17, 1939 in Melrose, Massachusetts
Nominated by: Bush I as Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, 1990
What You Should Know About This Justice: A traditionalist, he famously stated, in response to proposals to videotape oral arguments before the Supreme Court, "I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body." Although appointed by a Republican president, he tends to side with the more liberal justices rather than the conservatives. He dissented from the Court's opinion on the Bush v. Gore election of 2000 case. And yes ladies, he's single.

Born: October 1, 1924, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Nominated by: Nominated Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971; sworn in on January 7, 1972.
What You Should Know About This Justice: Rehnquist will be dead in a year.

Born: June 23, 1948 in the Pinpoint community, near Savannah, Georgia
Nominated by: Bush I as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court: took oath of office October 23, 1991.
What You Should Know About This Justice: Went to the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester Mass, and would not have been accepted had it not been for affirmative action (I'm not kidding). Enjoys adult films and harassing women.

Born: March 26, 1930 in El Paso, Texas
Nominated by: President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on July 7, 1981; confirmed by the United States Senate on September 22, 1981; and took oath of office on September 25, 1981
What You Should Know About This Justice: Currently ready to retire, and will be replaced by this anti-choice Justice.

Born: August 15, 1938, in San Francisco, California
Nominated by: President Clinton, as Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, August 3, 1994
Other:

Born: July 23, 1936 in Sacramento, California
Nominated by: President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court; took oath of office February 18, 1988
Other:

Got Civil Liberties?
Overview | Significant Cases | Most Recent Accomplishments | Examples of the ACLU Defending...Christians!

You would think civil liberties, privacy, and equality would be something most people value above almost everything else. You would also think that groups protecting those Constitutionally guaranteed rights would get all the support it could from all Americans, on the Right and Left.

You would be thinking incorrectly because one of the favorite targets of the misguided Right is the American Civil Liberties Union.

The main focus of the ACLU is protecting:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

As with most of the conservative propaganda limiting our free-thinking society, what the ACLU does for us as citizens, who it defends, and why they're of critical importance is completely distorted and lied about and repeated over and over again until it's finally accepted as truth.

Of these misconceptions is that the ACLU only prosecutes Religious speech, which couldn't be further from the truth. The ACLU's stance on the separation of church and state is as much about preserving and protecting religious practice as anything else. By fighting to see that the government acts with neutrality toward religion -- neither endorsing nor discriminating against particular faiths -- our system ensures religious liberty for all in our diverse society. The ACLU defends this founding American principle. Religious ideals are best represented by those within the religion itself, not by the government. The ACLU defends the rights of private citizens, churches and organizations to put up any religious displays they choose.

In many ways, the ACLU is the nation’s most conservative organization. The ACLU’s job is to conserve traditional civic values – the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – and to defend the rights of every person in this country. The ACLU’s client is the Constitution, not liberals or conservatives. In fact, in defending the Constitution the ACLU has worked with both liberals and conservatives. Most recently, the ACLU of Ohio is working with the self-proclaimed conservative chairman of the Summit County Republican Party in order to defend freedom of speech for all citizens.

The last time I checked, conservatives weren't exactly picketing the supreme court steps to protect anyone's right to freedom and privacy - so here's a closer look at what the ACLU does to save your ass and the asses of those you love on a daily basis.

ACLU History - What They've Done in the Past

The ACLU Protects the Freedom to Assemble...
-In 1931, Roth v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the ACLU and "affirmed a broad principle of freedom of association: 'The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion (...) is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.'"

-In 1939, Hague v. CIO the ACLU filed an important First Amendment case in which the Court recognized a broad freedom to assemble in public forums, such as "streets and parks," by invalidating the repressive actions of Jersey City's anti-union Mayor, "Boss" Hague.

The ACLU Protects the U.S. Citizens From Abusive Law Enforcement...
-In 1952, Rochin v. California, reversing the conviction of a man the ACLU defended whose stomach had been forcibly pumped for drugs by a doctor at the behest of police, the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause outlaws "conduct
that shocks the conscience."

-In 1964 the second controversial police case in which the ACLU played a major role, Escobedo v. Illinois, "raised the question of exactly when the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel began. (...) [T]he court held that suspects had a right to an attorney when in custody and when the questioning became accusatory." The ruling brought the "standards of due process into the previously hidden world of the police station."

-In 1966 the ACLU filed and Amicus brief in the third "police case:" Miranda v. Arizona. The ACLU stated that a "suspect in custody had not only a right to a lawyer but also a more fundamental right not to incriminate himself or herself." The Supreme Court's "decision enunciated the now-famous 'Miranda warning': Police were required to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.

The ACLU Fights for the Rights of the Mentally Ill...
-In 1975 "O'Connor v. Donaldson was ACLU's most important Supreme Court case taken by its Mental Health Law Project. Donaldson had been institutionalized for fifteen years. "He was not dangerous and had received no medical treatment." The Supreme Court ordered his release and "awarded him $20,000 in damages, establishing the principle that nondangerous persons could not be confined against their will."

-In 2002, claiming that the treatment needs of the emotionally disturbed are not being met, the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of four individuals currently being held at the Joliet Correctional Center under the state’s Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. The lawsuit asks the Illinois Department of Human Services to develop and implement a plan that insures that persons held under the commitment act receive meaningful mental health treatment while being held in custody.

The ACLU Fights for Freedom of Speech...
-In 1988 the ACLU filed an amicus brief in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, in which the Supreme Court affirmed "the right of school principals to censor school newspapers." The decision was considered to be one of civil liberties "worst" defeats.

-In 1990 the ACLU filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Eichman in which the Supreme Court "establish[ed] a first Amendment right to burn the American flag." The decision came at a time when "Congress debated early in the decade a series of amendments to the First Amendment." However, "the ACLU and its allies had successfully blocked any amendment from passing both houses of Congress."

The ACLU Protects the Freedom of Religion, and the Freedom FROM Religion...
-In 1965 The ACLU won an important victory in its attempt to redefine "conscientious objection" when the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Seeger, "extended the right of conscientious objection to people who did not necessarily believe in 'supreme being' but whose beliefs paralleled those of conventional religion."

-In 1986, with Goldman v. Weinberger, "the ACLU defended the right of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in the air force to wear a yarmulke." The Supreme Court upheld the air force continuing with its "general pattern of deferring to the interests of institutional authorities (...) at the expense of the individual."

Who, Praytell Will Save the Children? The ACLU!
-In 1968 Addressing the rights of the poor "[t]he ACLU made its greatest contributions at the Supreme Court in the areas of due process and equal protection." The ACLU "won Levy v. Louisiana which overturned a state law denying children the right to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of their mother because they were illegitimate."

-In 1968, the ACLU "won King v. Smith, which invalidated the traditional 'man in the house' rule that denied Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits to children whose mother was living with someone to whom she was not married. The decision made AFDC benefits available to an estimated 500,000 previously ineligible children across the country."

The ACLU Fights for the Rights of Racial Minorities...
-In 1931, the ACLU hired the nation’s first civil rights attorney, Al Wirin, who carried the fight to protect political speech into the courts.

-In 1934, Wirin drove out to the Imperial Valley armed with injunctions to prevent growers and businessmen from breaking up the meetings of Mexican farm workers.

-In 1942,, the ACLU affiliates on the West Coast became some of the sharpest critics of the government's policy on enemy aliens and U.S. citizens descended from enemy ancestry. This included the relocation of Japanese-American citizens, and prejudicial curfews based on race and national origin.

-In 1945, the California ACLU successfully litigated against schools segregating Mexican-American children in Orange County, CA

-In 1954, the ACLU played a role in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which led to the ban on segregation in U.S. public schools.

-In 1959 the ACLU made one of its most significant contributions to the civil rights movement in the area of police misconduct." It published Secret Detention by the Chicago Police which was "the first systematic study ever made of frequency of lengthy secret detentions by a municipal police force." It "had a direct influence on the three most controversial Supreme Court cases dealing with the police in the 1960s" namely Mapp v. Ohio; Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona.

-In 1993 "The enhanced penalty aspect of hate crime laws reached the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell." Several African-Americans assaulted a "white youth." Their motivation was clear "as they had shouted their intent to attack the victim on account of his race." "Accepting the ACLU's position," the Supreme court upheld the Wisconsin hate crime law which increased the assailants' sentence by several years.

-In 1965 The ACLU won an important victory in its attempt to redefine "conscientious objection" when the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Seeger, "extended the right of conscientious objection to people who did not necessarily believe in 'supreme being' but whose beliefs paralleled those of conventional religion."

-In 1967, Chuck Morgan, the director of the ACLU's Southern Regional Office, successfully challenged in several cases, racial and gender discrimination in the selection of jury, ultimately winning the Supreme Court case Whitus v. Georgia, which showed the Georgia state jury selection process to be racist and unfair.

The ACLU Champions Women's Issues...
-In 1971 the ACLU "defined women's rights as its 'top priority,' creating the Women's Rights Project. The key figure in the ACLU's campaign was law professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg." She wrote, with two other counsels, the ACLU brief in Reed v. Reed, "the breakthrough women's rights case in the Supreme Court." The case "challenged the automatic preference for men over women as administrators of estates, with Ginsburg contending that this violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Supreme Court only partially agreed with the ACLU and held that "gender was not a 'suspect classification" demanding the same 'strict scrutiny' by the courts as race did."

- In 1973 Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued "Frontiero v. Richardson for the ACLU in an amicus brief. In this case "the Supreme Court ended a U.S. military policy that gave the husbands of servicewomen an automatic dependency, whereas the wives of servicemen had to meet a dependency test.

-On March 21 2005, the Supreme Court the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of Colorado v. Gonzales, a case that will determine the accountability of local law enforcement for failing to enforce court orders that protect victims of abuse by a spouse or acquaintance.

-In April, 2005 the ACLU Women's Rights Project hails the first federal court ruling that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against domestic violence victims.

- In 1971, the ACLU filed a brief in Phillips v Martin Marietta, where the Supreme Court rule that an employer violates Title VII when it refuses to hire women with young children while hiring men who are similarly situated.

- In 1974 the Supreme Court for the first time considers an Equal Pay Act claim based on an employer paying women less than men for the same work. It determines that the gap between Corning female day inspectors and the male night inspectors violate this act. The ACLU authors an amicus brief on behalf of the ACLU Women's Right's project.

- In 1975 the ACLU files a brief and the Supreme court holds that it is unconstitutional for public employers to require women to take unpaid maternity leaves after the first trimester of pregnancy because of a conclusive presumption that pregnant women are no longer able to work.

- In 1975, the ACLU Women's Right's project spearheads a case where the Supreme Court invalidates a state regulation making pregnant women ineligible for unemployment benefits 12 weeks before birth and six weeks after birth regardless of their capacity to work.

- In 1977 the ACLU files a brief on behalf of a female client who was denied accumulated seniority rights because she was on pregnancy leave.

- In 1979 the ACLU Women's Rights Project files an amicus brief that helps persuade the Supreme Court to invalidate a program for the unemployment benefits under the "Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. The program provides benefits to families with unemployed fathers, but not to those with unemployed mothers, and is therefore unconstitutional.

- In 1981, Kirchberg v. Feenstra, the ACLU files a brief influence the Supreme Court, for the first time, to strike down a law that gives a husband the right to control marital property without his wife's consent. Feenstra's husband signed a promissory note mortgaging their marital home to his attorney without telling his wife. The court finds this Louisiana law to be an abridgement of married women's constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

- In 1986, in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court finds that sexual harassment that creates a hostile environment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by title VII. The ACLU files a brief in the case.

- In 1991 the ACLU Women's Right's Project authors an amicus brief that helps persuade the Supreme Court that Title VII forbids employers from adopting a fetal-protection policy preventing fertile women from working in jobs that entail exposure to lead or other toxins that might harm a fetus. The point the ACLU made is that women must be allowed at least the choice to make their own decision about pregnancy and dangerous work, and as long as women can perform their jobs, employers must not exclude them from certain kinds of work based on expressions of concern for children they might conceive.

- In 1992 the Supreme Court HOlds that Title IX supports a claim for monetary damages. In this case the high school student seeking damages claims she was sexually harassed and abused by her teacher and coach and that administrators were aware of the harassment and abuse but took no action to stop it and encouraged her not to press charges against the teacher. The ACLU files the complaint on her behalf.

The ACLU Defends the Rights of Men...
- In 1980 the Supreme Court strikes down a state law denying widowers worker's com benefits upon the work-related death of their wives unless they prove dependency or incapacity, while granting windows such benefits automatically.

- In 1979 the ACLU Women's Rights Project files a brief in which the Supreme Court invalidates statutes providing that husbands, but not wives, may be required to pay alimony upon divorce and thus casts off the presumption that husbands are never dependent upon their wives for financial support.

- In 1982 the Supreme Court rules that it is unconstitutional for a state to provide a nursing school for women only, since there is no important governmental interest in perpetuating women's over-representation in the nursing field.

- In 1998 the ACLU files a brief in a case where the Supreme Court holds that Title VII prohibits same-sex sexual harassment. The case involves a male offshore oil rig worker who was subjected to sex-related humiliating actions by male co-workers and physically assaulted in a sexual manner by two male co-workers and a supervisor.

Examples of the ACLU Defending Religion and Christians
Examples to email your Christian friends to let them know the ACLU will always protect their ability to hug their Bible, when it applies to the Constitution

In April, 2002, the ACLU defended the Rev. Jerry Falwell, in a case where Falwell challenged a section of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating. The ACLU joined the lawsuit as a "friend of the court," challenging the ban on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free exercise of religion.

In 1994 the ACLU filed briefs defending the Lamb's Chapel in support of their claim against a school district for not allowing them access to school facilities to show a series of anti-abortion films (all other community groups were allowed to rent school facilities and the Equal Access Act says they cannot discriminate against religious groups).

The ACLU of Nebraska in August 2004 defended a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city of Lincoln. "The First Amendment guarantees the right to free exercise of religion," ACLU of Nebraska Legal Director Amy Miller said. "A church cannot be forced to close its doors unless the city can prove there is a compelling reason to shut them down. In this case, the church is a small congregation that causes no problems for anyone. The city has failed to provide a single reason for ordering our clients out, though we've been requesting a reason for many months now. The ACLU of Nebraska notified Lincoln city officials in January that legal action would be taken unless the city ceased to harass the church.

In June 2004 under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, Falmouth, VA Park Manager Brian Robinson agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County. . Said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis, "Government officials often seem not to understand that private religious expression is protected in public forums. Afraid of violating separation of church and state by permitting religious activities, they end up obstructing freedom of religion."

In May, 2004, after ACLU Intervention on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a Michigan High School agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries. The student’s entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible. “While it is true that schools may not constitutionally promote religion, they also must be very careful not to suppress the private religious expression of their students,” said Michael J. Steinberg, ACLU of Michigan Legal Director, who represented Abbey Moler, the Sterling Heights student. “This was a case where a high school had created a forum for student expression, yet censored a student’s speech because it was religious in nature."

In July 2004, the ACLU defended a Catholic man who was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program, which prevented him from practicing his own religious faith. This man was punished for insisting on the right to practice his own religion and refusing to be religiously indoctrinated as a condition of a court order," said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "The endorsement of any faith as well as the discouragement of any other is clearly a violation of the First Amendment."

In February 2002, the ACLU filed court briefs on behalf of students who were attaching religious cards to candy-canes they were handing out on public school property. The students, who are members of a Christian group, had also approached Jerry Falwell's Liberty Council for legal assistance. The Liberty Council lawyers were apparently unwilling to collaborate with the ACLU and proceeded, separately, to file suit in U.S. district court.

In April 2005, the Iowa Civil Liberties Union condemned school officials for threatening to punish two teenage girls who wore anti-abortion T-shirts to school. The group also offered to assist the students in their quest to continue wearing the shirts at school. "These students had their free speech rights violated, and the ICLU stands ready to defend them," said Ben Stone, Executive Director of the ICLU. "This appears to be a clear case of government abuse of power, and it must be stopped."

The Massachusetts ACLU defended the rights of a church to run "anti-Santa" ads in the Boston subways. The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) for removing subway advertisements promoting the views of a local church and refusing to sell additional advertising space to the church. One of the controversial ads, paid for by The Church of the Good News, said that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas or “believe in lies about Santa Claus, flying reindeer, elves and drunken parties.” A second ad, which was rejected by the transit authority and never posted, said, “There is only one true religion. All the rest are false.”

With that said, let's look at just some of the parts of the Patriot Act the ACLU and other civil liberty advocates want you to know about.

• SEARCH YOUR HOME AND NOT TELL YOU FOR WEEKS, MONTHS OR INDEFINITELY (Sec. 213)
The USA Patriot Act expands law enforcement’s ability to conduct secret “sneak and peek” searches of your home. Investigators can enter your home or office, take pictures and seize items without informing you that a warrant was issued, for an indefinite period of time. This is regardless of whether or not you're guilty or innocent.

• COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT YOU READ, WHAT YOU BUY, YOUR HOTEL VISITS AND YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY (Sec. 215)
USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement broad access to any types of records – medical, financial, gun, library, educational, sales, etc. – without probable cause of a crime. It also prohibits the holders of this information, like librarians, from disclosing that they have produced such records, under threat of imprisonment. The court orders are issued by a secret intelligence court in Washington and judges have little power to deny applications. Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents. For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.

• SEIZE BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RECORDS (Sec. 505)
Also, in certain instances access the membership lists of organizations that provide even very limited Internet services (message boards on your church website for instance) using “national security letters,” or NSLs, which are issued at the sole discretion of the Justice Department. The Patriot Act expanded access to these NSLs, which also impose a blanket gag order on recipients and are not subject to judicial review.

• TRACK YOUR EMAIL ACTIVITY AND WEB USAGE (Sec. 216)
The Patriot Act lets the government get records that could show the subject lines of your e-mails and details about your Web surfing habits (like your recent research on Google), all without probable cause.

Patriot Act FAQ

The name is an acronym for the full name of the Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. It was enacted as Public Law 107-56 on October 26, 2001.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the legislation was prepared in secrecy (and with astonishing speed) by the US Department of Justice and a few members of the Bush Administration. It was submitted to Congress with intense pressure from the Administration to get it passed immediately. Copies of the law were unavailable to members of Congress for some time, and even when they were finally distributed few members bothered to read it. The law was passed in a single marathon session at a time when the Capitol was under attack with a strain of anthrax originally developed by the US military.

What does the Patriot Act do?

What does it not? The Patriot Act is the single most invasive law ever passed in the entire history of the United States. It stripped away almost all of the hard-won protections that followed the Watergate and COINTELPRO scandals of the 1970s, and created powers that J. Edgar Hoover (and Ronald Reagan) only dreamed of. Not even the McCarthy era saw laws like this one.

The Patriot Act made sweeping and unprecedented changes to civil liberties, habeas corpus, Federal powers of surveillance, and many other facets of US law. It also granted new powers to the Justice Dept., allowing it to order massive surveillance, break-ins, and even secret detentions with almost zero judicial oversight of any kind. The Patriot Act empowers the FBI to seize "any tangible thing", including books, letters, diaries, library records, medical and psychiatric records, financial information, membership lists of religious institutions, and even – as Attorney General Ashcroft himself conceded in testimony before Congress – genetic information.

In many case they do not even need a warrant – all they have to do is (secretly) proclaim someone a terrorist. They can even secretly review your library and credit records and never tell you. They can even "wire tap" all of your Internet activity and your ISP is legally barred from ever telling you. Just a few of the provisions of the Patriot Act are explained here and here.

In other words: there is no real system of checks and balances, portions of the US Constitution have essentially been suspended, and all bets are off.

Why should I care? I'm not an immigrant (or a terrorist)!

The simple fact is, the Patriot Act affects every American regardless of their citizenship or political affiliation. For one, the law drastically redefines what is considered "terrorism" to the point where many normal political expressions or affiliations can be deemed "terrorism" by fiat of the Attorney General. Even knowing someone who engages in such acts – whether you know it or not – could mean your being subjected to surveillance or worse. They can now even secretly surveil "privileged" communications between attorneys and their clients.

Even our freedom to travel is affected: under the new CAPPS II program, anyone matching a top-secret "profile" (which even includes your financial records!) can be barred from flying at any time and with no explanation. In some circumstances, you could be immediately arrested and taken to a secret location. Still more invasive is the now-infamous Total Information Awareness (TIA) program (renamed the Terrorist Information Awareness in a propaganda ploy) which is designed to scour government and commercial databases for supposedly "suspicious" activity by anyone. The man who created the project – convicted Iran-Contra perjurer John Poindexter – has resigned amidst scandal. But the program is currently still underway despite efforts by some in Congress to stop it. Meanwhile, the Dept. of Defense (which is in charge of the operation) is lobbying heavily to keep it alive.

And it's not just "liberals" who are worried about the Patriot Act. The Inspector General of the Dept. of Justice recently released a report which proved that people "detained" under its provisions have been beaten and otherwise abused while in Federal custody. Even some of the most conservative members of Congress are publicly concerned about the effects of the Patriot Act.

What's this 'Patriot II' thing I've heard about?

In late 2002, rumors that the Justice Dept. was secretly creating even more draconian legislation had been circulating for some time, but Atty. Gen. Ashcroft and other spokespersons vehemently denied it, even in Congressional testimony. Then in early 2003 the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) managed to obtain a copy of the "nonexistent" draft legislation, releasing the text in full to the public. (Read a Bill Moyers interview with Chuck Lewis of CPI about PATRIOT II.)

Dubbed by the press as "Patriot Act II," the official name is the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA). The proposed legislation would not only make permanent key provisions of the USA Patriot Act, it would add all new powers that would drastically expand the already dreadful provisions of the first law, and decrease judicial oversight powers even further. (Read an ACLU analysis of "PATRIOT Act II".)

Now I hear there's something called the 'VICTORY Act'. What is that?

Once again we have a propagandistic acronym: the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003. It is essentially a re-packaged version of Patriot II, with some new provisions and "refinements". It would also effectively combine the "War in Drugs" and the "War on Terrorism", further blurring the line between national security and ordinary law enforcement and potentially classifying even minor drug offenses as "terrorism".

A recent draft of the VICTORY Act has been posted on the Internet. There are now also a number of summaries of its potential impacts, including this one. At this writing, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft is on a coast-to-coast "road show" supporting the Patriot Act and advocating passage of the VICTORY Act, something many consider to be lobbying – an activity which the Attorney General is prohibited by law from engaging in. Even the DOJ web site is promoting outright falsehoods about the effects of the Patriot and VICTORY Acts.

"The Patriot Act was carefully written to protect the civil liberties that have long defined American democracy. All of the investigative tools I have described require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out. And similar statutes have been on the book for years, and tested in the courts, and found to be constitutional."
The Truth: ThePatriot Act violates the US Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech and expression and the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

"Another problem that law enforcement faced before 9/11 involved what is called a delayed-notification search warrant. These allow law enforcement personnel, with court approval, to carry out a lawful search without tipping off suspects and giving them a chance to flee or to destroy evidence. Before September 11th, the standards for these kinds of warrants were different around the country. The Patriot Act provided a clear national standard and allows these warrants to be used effectively in terrorism cases."

The Truth: The Patriot Act actually made it easier to conduct a covert "sneak and peek" search. Prior to the law, agents could obtain such a warrant only if notification would endanger somebody's physical safety or life, imperil evidence or incite flight from prosecution. Today, prosecutors need only argue that notification would "jeopardize an investigation," a broad catch-all justification. In fact, terrorism or espionage investigators did not necessarily have to go through the criminal courts for a covert search prior to the Patriot Act - they could do so with even fewer safeguards against abuse by going to a top-secret foreign intelligence court in Washington. The Bush administration's earlier misstatements on sneak-and-peek clearly demonstrate that the Patriot Act is not limited to terrorism. In fact, many of the law's expanded authorities can clearly be used outside the war on terrorism.

"Many provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year, including the sections that allow intelligence and law enforcement agencies to share information. Congress can renew the act in full, yet some legislators seem to believe that the Patriot Act is no longer needed to confront the terrorist threat."
The Truth: Less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will not do so until December 31, 2005.

"The Patriot Act also corrected several dangerous double standards in our investigation laws. For example, during the years al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attacks, law enforcement officers had a number of effective tools to track drug smugglers and mobsters -- tools that were legally forbidden in the fight against terror. If a crime boss routinely changed his telephone number to evade the police, all of the conversations could be monitored by a single court order. But if the government was investigating a terrorist, such roving wiretaps were not available, and investigators had to go back to the judge for another warrant."

The Truth: Roving wiretaps were available prior to 9/11 against drug lords and terrorists. Prior to the law, the FBI could get a roving wiretap against both when it had probable cause of crime for a wiretap eligible offense. What the Patriot Act did is make roving wiretaps available in intelligence investigations supervised by the secret intelligence court without the judicial safeguards of the criminal wiretap statute.

"Before 9/11, there were rigid restrictions on the way law enforcement agents, intelligence officers, and national security personnel could share information about potential threats. The FBI and the CIA often failed to share critical information -- and in some cases, divisions within the FBI were not permitted to share, even with each other. The Patriot Act broke down these walls that kept key officials from seeing critical information held by their colleagues in our own government. Because of the Patriot Act, our homeland security personnel are now working together and sharing information so that we can do everything in our power to prevent another attack. "

The Truth: The CIA and the FBI could talk and did. As Janet Reno wrote in prepared testimony before the 9/11 Commission, "There are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counter terrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of the members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other. With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction. While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title III wire taps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment since there was very little significant information that could not be shared.

Other Patriot Act Links

- The Patriot Act scares even some conservatives

- Conservatives defending post-9/11 freedoms

- Patriot Act Press Releases

- Fact sheet regarding Section 215

- An alternative to the Patriot Act

- A good Patriot Act primer

- Full Text of the Patriot Act (read it yourself)

(back to top)

And the Nominees Are...

Activist Judge McConnell | Activist Judge Sutton | Activist Judge Cook | Activist Judge Owen | Activist Judge Rogers Brown

Activist Judge Pryor | Activist Judge Estrada | Activist Judge Pickering | Activist Judge Kuhl

Activist Judge Kavanaugh | Activist Judge Boyle

It's been said you can typically tell a lot about a person, especially a political figure, by who speaks highly of them, and more importantly, who supports them both verbally and in action. I believe you can tell just as about a President by their judicial nominees. Who a President nominates speaks volumes about their political/social and constitutional views, which lobbyists they'll cater too, and which lobbyists feel that particular a particular President's values will allow them to be heard in the first place.

In short, President Bush's nominees, for the most part, have been almost shocking - perhaps not to the guy who just cut you off with his giant W-sticker littered suburban, but to those who value things like equality, justice, and Democracy, Bush's list of appointments are one of the biggest threats to all three. While the liberal media hasn't covered most of these nominations or even characterized them for who they really are, the media will go out of it's way to paint the Democrats as the whining, minority party who, instead of fighting for the 85% of the nation who don't agree with people like this guy, are simply out to place roadblocks and be difficult politically.

The fact is, the last Congress approved 204 judicial nominees and reduced the court vacancy rate to its lowest level in 15 years. Far from being unfairly blocked President Bush’s, "Extreme 20" were blocked for solely to protect the integrity of our federal courts. When Bush puts forward moderate judges, they are confirmed. . In contrast to President Bush’s near perfect confirmation record over the past three years, conservatives in Congress blocked 20 percent of President Clinton's judicial nominees during the last six years of the previous administration.

So, here is a look at who he has been trying to get onto various benches in various circuits, and why you should be really uncomfortable about it.

Michael McConnell, Confirmed November 15, 2002, Tenth Circuit

Among the many subjects he has pursued, McConnell has written extensively on a number of civil rights issues. Much of his writing and advocacy concerning civil rights, however, is extremely troubling:

Jeffery Sutton, Confirmed April 29, 2003, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Deborah Cook, Confirmed May 5, 2003, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Pricilla Owen, Confirmed May 25, 2005 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Janice Rogers Brown, Confirmed June 8, 2005 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

William Pryor, Jr., Confirmed June 9, 2005 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit After Bush Appointment

Judge Charles Pickering, appointed to the Fifth Circuit before two defeats in Senate, retired 12/04

Carroll Kuhl Nominated to the Ninth Circuit; filibustered by the U.S. Senate. Declined renomination in the 109th Congress.

Kavanaugh played an important role in the selection of most of President Bush's more controversial nominees. In his position with the Bush administration's White House Counsel's office, one of Kavanaugh's main responsibilities was serving on the administration's judicial selection committee. Kavanaugh played a role in the selection of controversial nominees Priscilla Owen, Dennis Shedd, Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, and William Pryor. As reflected in their records, these nominees would seek to undermine the authority of Congress and weaken federal, civil, and human rights protections for people of color, individuals with disabilities, women, workers, gay and lesbians, older Americans, and children.

Kavanaugh has sought vigorously to expand presidential secrecy and promote what critics have called an "imperial presidency." Kavanaugh's work with President Bush has included efforts to keep secret the records of Vice President Cheney's energy task force meetings and to eviscerate the Presidential Records Act concerning the records of former presidents.

Kavanaugh has defended even the most questionable conduct of former independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Kavanaugh was responsible for drafting the office's articles of impeachment against President Clinton. These articles have been criticized, by conservative commentators, as "strain[ing] credulity" and based on "shaky allegations."

Kavanaugh's lack of legal experience makes him an unqualified nominee for the D.C. Circuit. Of the ten most significant "litigated" matters he reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee, two consisted of simply filing friend-of-the-court briefs. Several others did not even involve a court appearance. In two Supreme Court cases, including one in which Kavanaugh tried to limit the attorney-client privilege and another concerning government-endorsed school prayer, the Supreme Court squarely rejected Kavanaugh's arguments.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has a critical role in our federal judicial system. It is the second most important court in the United States, after the Supreme Court. Because of the significance of this court, it is extremely important that this nomination be carefully scrutinized.

For many Americans, the federal judiciary is the first line of defense against violations of dearly held constitutional principles. Because of the impact that lifetime appointments of judges hostile to civil rights may have on the rights of millions of Americans, LCCR/LCCREF will continue to monitor the integrity of the processes of nominating and confirming judicial appointments.

Terrence Boyle, Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

he 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has more African Americans within its jurisdiction than any other circuit in the country, and has one of the fastest growing Latino populations. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is effectively the court of last resort for the people of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland.

As a District Court Judge, Boyle has repeatedly promoted "states' rights" at the expense of individuals' federally protected civil rights. In one case, United States v. North Carolina, Judge Boyle found that the state could discriminate against women because federal anti-discrimination laws conflicted with North Carolina's "culture." The Supreme Court overturned his ruling.

Judge Boyle has an established record of denying civil rights protections. He has attacked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color, as well as national origin, sex, and religion. In one such case, Ellis v. State of North Carolina, Judge Boyle invoked sovereign immunity, ruling that an African American plaintiff could not sue the state for discrimination. He was overruled by the Fourth Circuit.

The vast majority of Boyle's District Court opinions have not been made public. Judge Boyle has thousands of unpublished opinions. In his latest Judiciary Committee Questionnaire, dated January 2003, Judge Boyle estimated that he had decided between 11,000 and 12,000 district court cases yet fewer than 400 of those opinions have been published.

Judge Boyle has the worst reversal rate of all of President Bush's nominees. Judge Boyle's decisions have been repeatedly reversed for committing "plain error" and other fundamental legal mistakes. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals - the very court to which Boyle has been nominated - has reversed his rulings more than 150 times, twice the rate of an average judge.

Terrence Boyle is a protégé of former Senator Jesse Helms. It was former Senator Helms who first recommended Boyle to President Reagan, citing his shared conservative ideology, and it was Senator Helms who shepherded Boyle's District Court nomination.

2001, November 04: Report of suppression of dissenting opinion
By citizens of Sacramento. During a recent visit to Sacramento by Bush,, some thirty anti-war protesters were kept away from the street the presidential motorcade was using, while non-protesters were allowed unrestricted access. The protesters were stopped by local mounted and foot patrol officers; ostensibly due to a request made by Secret Service agents during planning meetings for the event. Both agencies are ducking responsibility for the suppression and blaming the other.

2002, September 28: Observing a protest
By Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union. She was arrested while taking photographs of protesters at the Phoenix Civic Plaza during a presidential visit. Despite having taken part in numerous demonstrations, starting back during the Viet Nam war, this is her first arrest. Ms. Eisenberg is rather angered by this incident, contending that she did nothing to provoke an arrest. Eleanor Eisenberg says in the U.S. District Court complaint filed Tuesday that she was taking photographs of protesters, not participating in the demonstrations, when she was knocked to the ground, arrested and hauled to jail. Eisenberg's suit accuses Department of Public Safety Officer John Bottoms and Phoenix police Officer Wesley Martin of assault, false arrest and numerous civil rights violations. The Sept. 27 incident occurred at Third and Washington streets, where demonstrators had gathered while Bush attended a Republican Party fund-raiser in the Phoenix Civic Plaza. Eisenberg contends she did not disturb the peace in any way.

"When Ms. Eisenberg was photographing several law enforcement officers arrest a protester, defendant Martin assaulted Ms. Eisenberg without any provocation or warning by bumping into her with the horse that he was riding," the suit alleges.

2002, August 23: Another free speech zone story
On August 23, 2002, at an appearance in a local park to support a Republican gubernatorial candidate, protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience. They were advised that if they went to the other side of the buses, a location visible to those attending the event, they would be arrested. People who carried signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to gather in front of the buses, where event attendees could see them. Local police told the protesters that the decision to force them behind the buses had been made