Governor Carcieri and “civil rights”
The ACLU of Rhode Island has attacked Governor Donald Carieri’s record on civil rights (and the Providence Journal newsroom obliged with an undiscerning, over-the-top headline).
Following is the basis of the ACLU’s charges:
•Carcieri suggested on talk radio in October that English-language interpreters are unnecessary.
•He made statements in a legal brief in August condemning “no-fault divorce” laws, adding on talk radio last month that the state’s welfare system is “enabling” unmarried women to “have children they can’t support.”
•He vetoed a bill in July that would have eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for various drug offenses associated with urban, minority offenders. The General Assembly passed the initial bill but declined to override the veto during a special session.
•He vetoed another bill in July that would have provided retirement and death benefits to domestic partners of state and municipal employees. The Assembly later overrode the veto.
•And Carcieri last spring supported legislation sending all 17-year-olds in the juvenile justice system to adult court. The Assembly approved the law in July, but reversed it four months later.
It should be noted that the first two items were statements made by Governor Carcieri (can a statement be a violation of someone’s civil rights?) and that the General Assembly concurred with him on two of the others. Already, then, the credibility of the ACLU’s criticism is diminished.
More importantly, as to the substance of all five of these items, how do any of them constitute a violation of civil rights? Hasn’t the ACLU misinterpreted or exaggerated the definition of civil rights, thereby watering down and even dishonoring genuine civil rights?
Monique,
Why wouldn’t the ACLU water down and dishonor genuine civil rights? They’re a racist and bigoted collection of socialist/communist white folk who honestly believe that people of color and homosexuals are inherently incapable of succeeding in this world on their own and without liberal intervention.
Let me be the first to congratulate Governor Carcieri on this most impressive of testaments to his upstanding ethical standards and morality.
An attack from the ACLU is a proud possession for anyone to hold.
One question that does puzzle me though.
Why do screaming liberals like Charlie Bakst and Stevie Brown C-H-O-O-S-E to live in white wasp conservative Barrington? lol Ouch!
My favorite is the one that starts out “He vetoed a bill in July that would have eliminated mandatory minimum sentences . . .”
Ok, so we have these mandatory minimums, which were passed by the (heavily Democrat) General Assembly . . . did the ACLU lodge civil rights complaints against the General Assembly when these laws were passed . . ? No, I thought not.
The ACLU’s credibility in this debate would’ve been enhanced considerably if they had gone after the General Assembly, too – the legislature’s hands are less than clean.
That being said, it’s become painfully obvious Carcieri has decided to play to the talk radio crowd in his second term. He’s hitched his wagon to a group that doesn’t give two expletives deleted about civil rights. Fine, as long as he doesn’t expect all of us to kiss his ring.
Why do screaming liberals like Charlie Bakst and Stevie Brown C-H-O-O-S-E to live in white wasp conservative Barrington? lol Ouch!
Posted by Tim at December 5, 2007 5:15 PM
XXX
Ha! The same reason leftist hypocrites like Whitehouse, Roberts, Chafee, Sapinsley, Paolino, Jerzyk and too many more to name send their own kids to private schools yet oppose giving non-millionaire parents school choice.
They “support the public schools”. Which means they are controlled by greedheads like Pat Crowley, Reback and other apologists for our failed, Soviet-style “public” schools but by no means stupid enough to send their own kids there.
Similarly, they will trip over themselves praying at the altar of “diversity” and extolling the virues of “undocumented immigrants” while having enough sense to avoid Third World areas like the plague.
>>He made statements in a legal brief in August condemning “no-fault divorce” laws, adding on talk radio last month that the state’s welfare system is “enabling” unmarried women to “have children they can’t support.”
Arguably the discretion to produce litters of little bastards that you can’t support is a civil right (would we really want to try to regulate this)?
OTOH, apparently to the ACLU receiving welfare payments to support your reckless behavior is also a “civil right?”
What about the “civil rights” issues involved with forcing taxpayers to subsidize other individuals’ irresponsibility????
I’ve read – but cannot confirm – the the ACLU was founded in the 1920’s / 30’s by an avowed communist with the stealth agenda of using our own Constitution as a lever to deconstruct society and pave the way for a communist revolution here.
I don’t know if that’s true, but whether it is or not, the ACLU’s activities are certainly consistent with that strategy and goal.
“apparently to the ACLU receiving welfare payments to support your reckless behavior is also a “civil right?””
A non-existent civil right which the ACLU claims the Governor curbed with a statement. Civil rights cannot be curtailed through speech alone.
Not all of the cases which the ACLU brings or champions are bad. In fact, some are necessary. But this stunt has seriously damaged their moral authority and credibility across the board.