With thanks for Jon Katz at Underdog, we learn that the ACLU has quietly filed an amicus brief in support of Sen. Larry Craig, challenging the Minnesota disorderly conduct law under the First Amendment. It must have been a really, really slow day over at the ACLU.
Please don’t misunderstand. I can appreciate why the ACLU steps forward in the ugliest of cases, for the most unsavory of defendants, in order to defend the Constitution when applied to society’s most despised members. I admire (usually) the integrity of what they do, if not its particular application. And I appreciate that they step forward when everyone else is stepping back, especially because these defendants lack the wherewithal to have competent representation, making their amicus involvement particularly important.
But that’s not Larry Craig. He’s got top notch legal talent pimping his cause. He may be ridiculed for his personal hypocrisy, but he’s hardly comparable to Nazis in Skokie (No, he’s not). No doubt the biggest factor that played in the mind of the ACLU decision-makers was that this was a high profile (albeit legally trivial) case that would get the ACLU back to a place it hasn’t visited in a while, the public’s eye.
Is that it? Is this a grab for headlines by the ACLU? Then why didn’t they file this amicus brief with great fanfare, waving American flags and letting the world know that they stand behind arch-conservative Republican pseudo-homophobes just like Nazis? And yet they didn’t.
Perhaps this was a cynical ploy to capture the heart of the Bush administration by doing everything they could to help the Republicans maintain standing in the Senate, and thereby support the administration’s Iraq war surge? If there’s faith based funding available, then shouldn’t the ACLU show a little faith? Sorry, but I can’t see this happening no matter how many briefs they file.
So what is the point of this amicus showing? My best guess is that it is simply an opportunity to stand up for the First Amendment despite the despicable nature of the defendant. But this is where I have some trouble with the ACLU. As Larry Craig puffs his self-righteousness, there are literally thousands of defendants across America who need the help that the ACLU could bring to their case. They lack the resources to buy top defense lawyers. They lack the personal prestige and clout that comes with being a United States Senator. But they are still human being, being charged under bad laws or bad applications of laws.
Hey ACLU, where are you? Why don’t you spend your time looking for all the little shmos out there who won’t get you headlines but need some backup? Do you care about the little guys? Is it all about the law and the Constitution? Well, it applies to no-name defendants just like it applies to Larry Craig.
If the ACLU has so much free time on its hands that it can submit an amicus brief in support of Larry Craig’s guilty plea withdrawal, then this country must be serving up some great justice to every man, woman and child across America. If not, then the ACLU better start taking a hard look around and find itself some defendants to support beyond the few high profile, easy mark targets. Seriously, ACLU, find a better use of your time or give it up. This case is not where you should be.
Please don’t misunderstand. I can appreciate why the ACLU steps forward in the ugliest of cases, for the most unsavory of defendants, in order to defend the Constitution when applied to society’s most despised members. I admire (usually) the integrity of what they do, if not its particular application. And I appreciate that they step forward when everyone else is stepping back, especially because these defendants lack the wherewithal to have competent representation, making their amicus involvement particularly important.
But that’s not Larry Craig. He’s got top notch legal talent pimping his cause. He may be ridiculed for his personal hypocrisy, but he’s hardly comparable to Nazis in Skokie (No, he’s not). No doubt the biggest factor that played in the mind of the ACLU decision-makers was that this was a high profile (albeit legally trivial) case that would get the ACLU back to a place it hasn’t visited in a while, the public’s eye.
Is that it? Is this a grab for headlines by the ACLU? Then why didn’t they file this amicus brief with great fanfare, waving American flags and letting the world know that they stand behind arch-conservative Republican pseudo-homophobes just like Nazis? And yet they didn’t.
Perhaps this was a cynical ploy to capture the heart of the Bush administration by doing everything they could to help the Republicans maintain standing in the Senate, and thereby support the administration’s Iraq war surge? If there’s faith based funding available, then shouldn’t the ACLU show a little faith? Sorry, but I can’t see this happening no matter how many briefs they file.
So what is the point of this amicus showing? My best guess is that it is simply an opportunity to stand up for the First Amendment despite the despicable nature of the defendant. But this is where I have some trouble with the ACLU. As Larry Craig puffs his self-righteousness, there are literally thousands of defendants across America who need the help that the ACLU could bring to their case. They lack the resources to buy top defense lawyers. They lack the personal prestige and clout that comes with being a United States Senator. But they are still human being, being charged under bad laws or bad applications of laws.
Hey ACLU, where are you? Why don’t you spend your time looking for all the little shmos out there who won’t get you headlines but need some backup? Do you care about the little guys? Is it all about the law and the Constitution? Well, it applies to no-name defendants just like it applies to Larry Craig.
If the ACLU has so much free time on its hands that it can submit an amicus brief in support of Larry Craig’s guilty plea withdrawal, then this country must be serving up some great justice to every man, woman and child across America. If not, then the ACLU better start taking a hard look around and find itself some defendants to support beyond the few high profile, easy mark targets. Seriously, ACLU, find a better use of your time or give it up. This case is not where you should be.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi, Scott- How are you doing?
I am puzzled by your comments about the ACLU. Having been very active with the ACLU for fifteen years, I know that the group repeatedly helps anonymous and disenfranchised people without credit sought nor received.
The ACLU’s amicus motion — linked at the Underdog link you’ve listed above — is first-rate, and will have a positive impact well beyond Larry Craig’s case, starting with giving other lawyers an excellent starting point for defending the First Amendment in a wide range of litigation.
It’s one thing if the ACLU provided free primary assistance to Craig, but it hasn’t. Instead, the ACLU has filed an amicus memorandum, which is substantially less time consuming than defending him from start to finish, and which does not leave to chance whether Craig’s lawyers — as expensive as they are — will help advance the ACLU’s civil liberties agenda as well as can the ACLU.
Take care. Jon
I’ve done a ton of organizational amicus work, and I am painfully aware of the vetting process that is required. The number of deserving, and needy, individuals is well beyond the ACLU’s means, leaving many seeking their amicus help and relatively few receiving it. For the ACLU to spend 2 second on Larry Craig, when there are so many more deserving of that consideration, amazes me.
Representing the despicable is one thing. Tossing your amicus hat into the ring for the powerful is another. The is particularly true when the issue of whether disorderly conduct is constitutional is NOT on the table yet. If the plea is withdrawn, then it may perhaps be significant, but right now the only issue is withdrawal of plea. And hence, either the ACLU has too little to do or it has grossly misplaced its priorities.