Monserrate Expulsion Upheld

The NY Civil Liberties Union (4.00 / 1)

...has decided that, of all of the cases of injustice, where there are people without the resources to fight, they have decided that it is a good idea to put their resources into...defending Monserrate? Instead of defending people who truly face real injustice? It's this type of poor judgment and a poor lack of priorities by the NY Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU that makes me...a former supporter and former contributing member. Their sense of priorities in determining which cases to devote their resources and their contributors' money to is...unbelievably...astoundingly...incompetent, inept and pretty much the opposite of true social justice. This organization really needs to get its head out of its arse.

As someone who is all for supporting those who can't fight for themselves and as a former supporter of the civil liberties union...it just appalls me to see them decide that...putting their resources into defending neo-Nazis instead of all of the other people who need their help, or defending Monserrate...instead of all of the other people who truly need their help is what they think is in the best interest of social justice.

As a long-time progressive and proud liberal, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union...disgust me.

---

by: paco @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 03:48:56 AM UTC

Excellent point, completely agree (0.00 / 0)

there is such a dearth of indigent legal services in this city and country- this was a huge waste of resources and it makes me seriously question their judgement.

---

by: Roatti @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 07:26:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mostly disagree (0.00 / 0)

First of all, the NYCLU only contributed an amicus brief, which doesn't take all that long to write if you know what you're doing.

Second, the question of the power of a legislature to kick someone out just because they don't like him (and that's why Monserrate was expelled, don't kid yourself) is extremely serious.  If the court is going to allow it, it won't be without a serious debate on the issue.

Third, the NYCLU (and the ACLU) exists not to defend individuals but to defend freedom in general, so they pick specific cases where our freedom (say, to speak out against a legislature) may be being challenged.  They get involved in specific cases because that's the only way to defend the taking of our freedom -- in the courts, on specific cases.

Fourth (and in the other direction), the NYCLU has screwed up cases for years.  If they knew what they were doing, the subway bag searches, which are not only unconstitutional but also a complete waste of law-enforcement resources, would have been thrown out.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 17:48:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

their flawed judgment (0.00 / 0)

...and priorities...in terms of selecting which cases to support instead of cases that are much more worthy...that's what caused me to discontinue my support for them. They simply have no basic common sense when they choose to devote ANY of their resources to people like Monserrate and NeoNazis INSTEAD of devoting those same resources to people and causes which are worthwhile. To me, their definition of worthwhile is severely flawed and they, basically, misused the donations given to them by me. Therefore, since they have poor judgment, an atrocious sense of priorities and cavalierly go around misusing the money donated to them by their very own contributors (many people like myself left for that reason, as well)...they are simply a joke to me. Principle? They have none, in my book, except to try to get headlines with outrageous actions, like aiding and abetting neo-Nazi's, when they don't have to (there are plenty of other principled cases just waiting for their attention and resources)and people like Monserrate (since when is he indigent, by the way, requiring their free assistance?)

The NY CLU and ACLU are run by people who do not have any common sense and who have an atrocious sense of priorities, in my opinion.

---

by: paco @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 20:50:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A debatable point (0.00 / 0)

Could you name a few cases the NYCLU should have taken up instead of the ones you don't like?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 02:54:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

why? (0.00 / 0)

you don't believe that there are people facing injustice in need of assistance who aren't already receiving legal aid? If not, then, perhaps the ACLU and NYCLU have accomplished their missions and can go home since there's no more injustice to fight.

Actually, off the top of my head a couple of cases come to mind: the case of Don Siegelman being railroaded out of office by a shamelessly partisan justice department which bent the rules and the law to suit their political whims...would be a much strong case of injustice than that of Monserrate.

Here in Central New York state, a guy named Carncross was convicted of murder because a state trooper died while on a high-speed case; manslaughter, perhaps, but murder? There was not even any intent. In addition to the Onondaga County District Attorney bringing a questionable case of murder against someone who was not attempting to murder anyone, the District Attorney, who served as prosecutor himself (to get headlines, of course) used unethical practices in getting the conviction.

---

by: paco @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:10:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Deference looms large (0.00 / 0)

The separation of powers often rears its head in the court's refusal to get involved in the internal workings of the legislature.  This often allows legislatures (and legislators) to get away with a lot of garbage.  The question is whether the cure would be worse than the disease -- once a court starts meddling, where does it end?

It's a tricky problem.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 17:50:33 PM UTC