That is...unbelievable.

If Maureen Dowd could get away with it, why not others?

I'd like to take those sons of bitches and tie them up to a tree and then I'd give them ...
thanks for all the great work.

In late 2001, I wrote to a lawyer friend:

"I have had the following idea, and would like to hear your comment on it if you are willing. It appears that, in today's legal system, the greatest financial rewards are in gold-digging: searching for some long chain of cause-and-effect which connects a wealthy defendant to a large pool of damages. The cigarette cases are so far the perfect example; I hear people are now trying the same trick with slavery. I wondered if this system could be made to cannibalize itself. Here are two examples of my thinking:

"1) If a minority-shareholder suit is found to be without merit, but still causes a company to move its headquarters, then the town formerly containing the headquarters has been damaged _by the plaintiffs in the original suit_.

"2) If anyone has been injured by new-style breast implants, when old-style breast implants were withdrawn from the market as a result of lawsuits despite the lack of evidence that they were injurious, then they have been injured _by the plaintiffs in the original suit_."

His response:

"The law abhors anything that dis-incentives lawsuits. So, unless you file a lawsuit based upon a lie, or file a suit with absolutely no legal basis whatsoever (i.e. you make a claim that the Supreme Court has said cannot ever be supported), there is generally an absolute privilege from liability for filing a lawsuit. This prevents the kind of meta-litigation that you contemplate."

I have no reason to distrust his facility with the law (he is now a partner at a top national firm), so I fear the game is structured to prevent your idea from working.

It appears that the ACLU has now changed the opening paragraph to more accurately represent the actual content of the First Amendment. Good work!

We are being deprived of our right to enjoy our country the way that it was intended. We are “offended” by the the ACLU and their ilk, who are trying to indoctrinate their agenda into our daily lives.

So, if we cannot sue the ACLU for damages, what can we sue them for?

You should be able to sue the ACLU for libel and slander. The ACLU and others of its ilk have tried to destroy the Boy Scouts for years. The ACLU has slandered and libeled the Boy Scouts by calling them a hate group. The ACLU has done this obviously to cause financial and other types of hardship to the Boy Scouts. This scenario fits the definition of libel and/or slander. Sue the ACLU and individual members of the ACLU until they explode.

Can we sue them for waisting tax payers dollars and misrepresenting our views? They find 1 or 2 parties to represent and the MAJORITY of us who disagree are paying for the court costs in ways that translate to judicial clogs and manpower waste for our government !

They failed and here they come again claiming they WILL TRY AGAIN ! HELP ! What gives them the right to try and try and try again at our expense
and I AS a taxpayer offended by that waste
am ready to sue. JUST GIVE ME A LAWYER !!

Check out what they are up to

November 19. 2008 6:59AM

Indiana House renews opening prayer tradition

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081119/News01/811209992/1054/Lives

HELP us sue the ACLU !

Its really sad what they are trying to do.

As far as I know though I havent a clue

SO let me know if any one knows how to undue

The spread of the non-religion religion facists called the ACLU

(sorry for the rhyme but its true
that if I could sue them its exactly what I'd do)

Article published Nov 19, 2008
Indiana House renews opening prayer tradition
Associated Press Report
INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana House will once again invite clergy members and other guests to give opening prayers before legislative work begins, a tradition that had been halted temporarily because of a lawsuit challenging the practice.

A U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled last year that taxpayers who sued over the prayers did not have the legal standing.

So on Tuesday, as lawmakers gathered for an organization day at the Statehouse before the January session begins, the House started its business with a prayer from the Rev. Matthew Barnes of Indianapolis.

The House also adopted new rules Tuesday that change the order of its proceedings, moving the prayer before the period when Representatives register their presence.

"It makes it optional and voluntary," House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, told The Associated Press Wednesday.

The Senate also plans to restore its practice of having senators and invited guests from various faiths offer prayers to start its business.

But whether the House and Senate's switch can prevent another legal challenge remains to be seen. The ACLU of Indiana, which represented the taxpayers in the previous lawsuit, says it could bring another lawsuit if sectarian prayers continue in the General Assembly.

U.S. District Judge David Hamilton ruled in 2005 that House prayers mentioning Jesus Christ or using terms such as savior amounted to state endorsement of a religion. But the appeals court said in 2007 that the taxpayers lacked standing to sue because they could not sufficiently link taxpayer money with the practice.

The ACLU could seek a new plaintiff who has legal standing, such as someone who is required to be in the House or Senate during the invocations, said ACLU legal director Ken Falk. Falk said Tuesday's rule changing the House proceedings did not make much difference. "If this is part of the House proceedings, regardless of its order, then I think it still is prayer by the House," Falk said.

Prayer in the Indiana House was a tradition for nearly 190 years when the ACLU challenged the practice on behalf of four taxpayers who believed the prayers — often Christian — were offensive and violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

Both Republicans and Democrats spoke out against the lawsuit, saying it tried to control the content of prayer and undermined the rights of all Hoosiers. House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, who was named in the lawsuit since he was House Speaker at the time, said he was glad prayers have been restored.

"The right of the General Assembly to decide its own procedure without judicial interference and the right of men and women to share their prayers and faith with the Indiana House of Representatives has been properly restored," said Bosma, R-Indianapolis.

Bauer said the House would continue to invite faith leaders from diverse backgrounds to give the prayer.

In the session before the lawsuit, the House invited a Muslim imam, a Jewish rabbi, Catholic priests and Protestant ministers to lead prayers. The Indiana Senate was not named in the ACLU lawsuit, but it changed its procedures to avoid sectarian prayers after the trial court's ruling.