I’ve made the argument before that a cumbersome, error-ridden eligibility determination process for state welfare benefits is seen by the current administration as more of a feature than a bug. ACLU-Indiana just won a battle against that sort of error-by-design. They successfully challenged FSSA’s practice of sending denial letters based on non-cooperation that fail to specify which document(s) the applicant supposedly did not provide.
It’s certainly not hard to imagine the FSSA spitting out a form letter in error that just says generally, “you failed to provide all of the necessary documentation.” Then, when the applicant tries to protest, he or she cannot point to the specific document that caused (or allegedly caused) the denial.
One of FSSA’s defenses was that there was a telephone number where you could call to ask about what the problem was. Rumor has it that telephone number required long waits and frequently kicked off people on hold. That didn’t cut it with the Court of Appeals that said due process requires the FSSA to provide denied applicants with some specifics about why they were being denied.
Sometimes, God help me, I love the ACLU.
I don’t want to lose any of the cases I get involved with against them; but aside from that, I’m happy they’re around.
The ACLU serves a great purpose.
I only wish the ACLU would support conservative civil liberties (gun rights, school choice) to the same extent they support liberal ones.
I’ve often heard the charge that the ACLU supports only liberal causes and have pondered that.Is it liberal or conservative to support the Neo-Nazis’ right to march through Skokie,Il?
I would say that would be supporting a conservative cause.
If school choice diverts public money from public schools,that would be a valid issue of protecting public education.
If a law is passed to allow concealed weapons in public that could undermine everyone’s safety in public,at least that would be the question that would be debated.
We would all be informed by an examination of which constitutional rights are liberal and which are conservative.Probably the question is ‘when’ rather than ‘which’.
They jumped in on Limbaugh’s side on some issue having to do with medical record privacy. As to jumping in on 2nd Amendment cases, there may be some political bias, but there is also the very practical reality that the NRA is well-funded, ready, and willing to take care of 2nd Amendment advocacy.
Yeah, IMHO, the right to privacy is a “liberal” cause, even if the person with the concern is conservative. The right of Nazi’s to walk through Skokie, Illinois (which is very-heavily Jewish) is a free-speech issue, and is neither conservative nor liberal.
I guess we can let the ACLU off the hook on gun rights just because other organizations like the NRA and the Institute for Justice pursued (and won) the issue. However, that seems like a pretty weak reason to me. If the ACLU wants to market themselves as a pursuer of all civil rights and liberties, they should do so without discrimination.
Another issue where the ACLU’s commitment to civil liberties is a bit weak appears to be campaign-finance reform. While it appears they came out in favor of allowing more political speech, they seem a bit wishy-washy on the subject. You can read some about it here… http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/The-ACLU-s-evolving-position-on-campaign-finance-809108.php