Now, however, it seems that the organization is having a change of heart. The AP (via a local CBS affiliate) reports that the ACLU of New Jersey is “likely to drop” the lawsuit filed against Christie.

After the suit was filed yesterday, Christie’s office released a page from his calendar confirming that the governor and his wife attended a private dinner on Sept. 11, 2010, in New York City.

The ACLU then released a statement noting that while the “response from the Governor’s office will likely resolve the lawsuit, it raises new questions.”

Frank Corrado, a lawyer representing Cook on behalf of the ACLU in New Jersey said he’s “happy so the matter resolved quickly,” but still has his concerns:

We’re happy to see the matter resolved quickly but remain concerned that the governor’s office initially issued a blanket executive privilege claim in response to Gawker’s request for records. Is the governor’s office actually reviewing records requests from the public, or is it simply using executive privilege as a carte blanche to deny access to all correspondence with his office?

h/t CBS3 Springfield

Linda Lye, a staff attorney for the ACLU writing on behalf of the young man and his mother, wrote a letter to Tobolski’s principal, Rick Messer, letting him know that, by suspending Tobolski, he had violated the student’s federal rights. Writes Lye:

Donny’s speech was protected under the state and federal constitutions, as well as the Education Code. That being so, Mesa Verse High School’s suspension of Donny for his protected speech violates state and federal law. We take this matter seriously because of the special role of freedom of speech in our democracy. Schools, tasked with the important role of teaching our youth about civic engagement, send the wrong message when they fail to live up to our country’s founding principles.

Lye adds that Tobolski’s comment, which was written neither on a school computer nor during school hours, posed no risk of “materially or substantially disrupting the school environment.” Furthermore, the comment does not qualify as “cyberbullying” – a growing issue among the young and mean, and a form of bullying among peers subject to disciplinary action by schools – because it did not constitute as sexual harassment, a hate crime, or a threat.

Was Tobolski’s comment immature and disrespectful? Or course. But it would appear, according to Lye’s argument, that the staff at Mesa Verde High School were not within their right to take disciplinary action for a rude but harmless comment Tobolski made in the privacy of his home (…albeit in the public arena that is The Internets.) But we’d like to pretend to care about you all think: Should the school be able to suspend Tobolski for his comment that his biology teacher was an avid consumer of trans fats in addition to, allegedly, being a feminine hygiene product?

h/t Mashable

The President didn’t have a lot of laugh lines in last night’s State of the Union address, and one line–designed to be light and amusing–has provoked the ACLU. When President Obama talked up investing in high-speed rail, he joked that one of the advantages would be “for some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down.”

Not much in the way of humor–it fell flat in the hall–but more than enough to get a reaction from the ACLU: not laughter, but outrage. As Sahil Kapur reports on Raw Story:

Moments after the president made the remark, the American Civil Liberties Union fired out a Tweet that read: “President Obama makes funny about TSA pat-downs, but the violations of the Constitution are NO JOKE!”

Kapur notes the tweet included a link to a “scathing report” on the ACLU website detailing complaints “from men, women and children who reported feeling humiliated by these searches, and, in some cases, comparing their psychological impact to sexual assaults.”

Watch the “joke” here, from MSNBC:

Judson Phillips, the leader of the Tea Party Nation who already made some controversial comments about only letting property owners vote, is at it again, now singling out the “top five liberal hate groups” for distinction. The lucky winners to have made his list include: the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the ACLU, the SEIU and the NAACP. Claiming that too often conservative groups are defined as “hate groups,” Phillips is eager to return the favor.

Angry with the DHS for its failure to secure the border, inept airport security measures and for its “silly political posturing from the most corrupt regime in the history of this country,” the insults from Phillips just keep flying. He calls Secretary Janet Napolitano “the DHS Clown in Chief,” and claims DHS invades privacy of Americans while not going after terrorists. As for the ACLU, he sums up their hatred accordingly: “If you hate America, the ACLU loves you and if you love America, the ACLU hates you.” Regarding the NAACP, Phillips doesn’t like their eagerness to label their opponents as racists.

Possibly Phillips’ over-the-top critical comments of these groups is an attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness of insulting people just because you disagree with them. Or maybe he just hates them?

(h/t Huffington Post)

In his new book, Decision Points, Bush details how he authorized the waterboarding of certain terror suspects, even though the practice is largely considered to be a form of torture and was since banned by the U.S. Well, the ACLU isn’t happy with the admission – and they think it’s worth a criminal investigation.

From a letter from the ACLU to attorney general Eric Holder:

“The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President’s acknowledgment that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history. The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust. It would also be profoundly unfair for [Assistant U.S. Attorney John] Durham to focus his inquiry on low-level officials charged with implementing official policy but to ignore the role of those who authorized or ordered the use of torture.”

While it’s a bit hard to imagine Holder actually following through on that request, considering the firestorm that would undoubtedly follow, the ACLU isn’t the only group making this kind of statement: Amnesty International recently said Bush must be prosecuted in the wake of his admission. Either way, none of this talk is likely to faze Bush. If anything is clear from his frank admissions and recent interviews to promote Decision Points, it’s that this is someone at peace with what he did as president…and someone who’d much rather leave the fierce debate over his actions to everyone else.

H/T The Daily Beast

Photo via

Iowa’s ACLU has also spoken out about the church: “Combining polling places with religious services is an invitation to the abuse of both religion and the civic act of voting,” says Executive Director Ben Stone in a statement. Church officials, for their part, say they didn’t discuss the voting during Sunday’s worship. Watch the clip below for more info.

The guest was criminal defense attorney Scott Fenstermaker, who has experience with defending terror suspects. O’Reilly asked Fenstermaker what his problem with the drone attacks was, and he stated that said attacks on Pakistan and on suspects like Anwar Al-Awlaki were illegal. “It has not been ruled illegal by anybody but you, Mr. Fenstermaker,” O’Reilly replied, which Fenstermaker refuted.

Fenstermaker then argued that he did not believe that Al-Awlaki was the enemy, as there was no direct proof that he was part of Al-Qaeda, and that the entirety of the war was “problematic” because it was “waging war against civilians.” He then upped the ante by saying that “our battles on Al-Qaeda are not necessarily well-directed,” and that “I don’t think Al-Qaeda is posing any threat to us now.”

After being asked several times whether he believed that Al-Qaeda was interested in killing him simply because he was an American, Fenstermaker replied, “I’m a bad example; I’m probably a hero to Al-Qaeda” and, after some pressing, told O’Reilly, “you don’t have the first idea of what you’re talking about” because he had not spoken to any members of Al-Qaeda. Surprisingly, this sentence did not instantly trigger a shouting match, though O’Reilly was shocked and temperately angry at the accusation, and, in a much more measured way than would typically be expected, disassembled Fenstermaker’s argument.

Sometimes, surreal cable news moments come in unintelligible yelling. Other times, they’re much more subdued.

The entire discussion below:

Murray explained that “he made a lot of promises during the campaign… and he is reneging on them,” giving as a specific example the closing of Guantánamo Bay, a promise Obama made on the campaign trail and has yet to fulfill. O’Reilly countered that it is quite possible that Obama simply changed his mind upon being giving the new information that comes with assuming the presidency, to which Murray responded, “well, he should say that… he hasn’t given any good reason,” he continued, on why he has yet to close the Bay.

He also expressed concerns with Obama’s immigration policy and other issues, prompting O’Reilly to ask if Murray thought Obama was a liar. He answered no, that it was not a lie but, rather, “a little bit of pushback. President Obama is under attack in a lot of different ways. He wants to become more moderate, look more moderate…” and may be forgetting the interests of the far left that elected him.

The segment below:

“It is of utmost importance to me that those who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 face a court,” expresses the mother of a fallen firefighter killed on September 11, 2001. This is the sentiment throughout a new video making the rounds online in which family members of 9/11 victims voice their support for federal trials of terrorism suspects.

The video first appeared late in the week, though the interviews were conducted before the Obama administration announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in New York City, while other Guantanamo prisoners would also be brought stateside to face charges.

“My son gave his life to save those trapped in the Twin Towers and it does not honor him that we violate our Constitution in retaliation for what happened on September 11,” one mother says, while another says, “the judges can make a decision based on our Constitution.”

It’s a far cry from the “off with their heads!” heat of Saturday’s NY Post and other arguments of that ilk, but this measured and moving video carries a bit more gravitas, daring to bother with issues of intellectual honesty and human rights. The full clip can be seen below.

(h/t Glenn Greenwald)