[BC] Bill O'Reilly's interesting comments

[Rich Wood]

------ At 08:44 AM 10/17/2005, cldube wrote: -------

>I think you need to remember that what the ACLU is defending is not 
>NAMBLA's beliefs or actions, but simply their right to express their 
>viewpoints in court. They are taking on the position of the attorney 
>to the defendant. Does a lawyer who defends a murderer in court 
>necessarily believe that what the murderer did was right? Or that 
>murder is a good thing? Of course not. When the ACLU was defending 
>Ollie North they were acting in the very same capacity.

They're also involved with Rush Limbaugh's drug problems. What will 
Talk Show Hosts do if the ACLU goes away?

>The problem is that many in this country seem to believe that 
>certain defendents in this country don't deserve the basic 
>constitutional right to have their position heard in a court of law 
>because their position is considered obscene or immoral.

I wonder who would be opposed to that? Can you say "religious fanatics?"

>Isn't that what courts are about? To hear both sides of the issue 
>and make a determination based on our legal precedents?

We'll have to wait and see. Since religion is becoming a major issue 
in this current Supreme Court nominee, throwing a bone to the 
religious pit bulls could make defending "immoral" people difficult. 
Since Democrats are immoral it'll be tough to get them to vote on a 
moral person who might declare the Democratic versions of Tom DeLay 
and Bill Frist to be immoral people. I wonder if Frist will get the 
same sentence they gave to Martha Stewart for doing the same thing? 
Or will that be the precedent only for "uppity" women.

>Heaven help us when any party in this country is not considered 
>"moral" enough to have their side represented in court. It seems 
>that many at Fox, World News Daily etc etc would be comfortable with 
>that as long as their's isn't the amoral position by popular consensus.
>
>This is simply knee-jerk judgement with little analysis.

Of course it is. It gets ratings. It sells The Washington Times. It 
would be so much easier to just let the KKK run our judicial system. 
They're Christian (by their own claim) so they must be moral enough 
to pass judgement. Likewise the Aryan Nation. They're moral 
Christians (by their own claim) so how about a seat on the Supreme 
Court and lower courts. I suspect their decisions would please 
radical religious fanatics even though their techniques might be a 
little messy for the ladies. I would have nominated Fred Phelps for 
the court seat. He's a Christian (by his own claim).

Let's put it up as a topic for talk shows. Limbaugh would probably 
abstain. Hannity would have to learn who they are. Savage has such a 
gay fetish he'd give Phelps sainthood before death. O'Reilly has 
already weighed in. No spin anywhere here.

Rich