ACLU sues Jeppesen for Flights

Jim Maher opined

Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.

Don't give them any ideas.






-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they champion
the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some underdog someday
might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights movement comes to mind.)

But...

....that's just stupid. It's actually worse than stupid, though, because
it's going to tangle Jeppesen up in a legal battle it doesn't deserve. Do
you suppose they'd sue United for carrying terrorist hijackers?

-c

"Robert Barker" wrote in message
...

Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to
find
out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll
drop the suit and go after the real perps...

They should sue Evergreen if that's what they want. They flew from
McMinnville to the stepdown point for Groom Lake about a year ago.

'Course, the ACLU has probably never heard of it.

-c

gatt wrote:
Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they
champion the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some
underdog someday might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights
movement comes to mind.)
But...

...that's just stupid. It's actually worse than stupid, though,
because it's going to tangle Jeppesen up in a legal battle it doesn't
deserve. Do you suppose they'd sue United for carrying terrorist
hijackers?
-c


My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of the Bill
of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they defend.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
gatt wrote:
Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they
champion the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some
underdog someday might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights
movement comes to mind.)
But...

...that's just stupid. It's actually worse than stupid, though,
because it's going to tangle Jeppesen up in a legal battle it doesn't
deserve. Do you suppose they'd sue United for carrying terrorist
hijackers?
-c


My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of the Bill
of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they defend.

That's for sure. They are about the most hypocritical organization around.

Matt

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
gatt wrote:
Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they
champion the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some
underdog someday might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights
movement comes to mind.)

Absolute BULL****. Dig into their origins and find what a fraud they were
and pretty much still are (past their sedate PR crap).

But...


My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of the
Bill of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they defend.

Which is emblematic of their origins, and their original (and even today)
purpose.

I suspect you DO know what they were, don't you?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of the Bill
of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they defend.

Actually, the ACLU has an extremely consistent record of unconditionally
defending civil liberties, without respect to race, creed, color ... or
popularity.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of
the Bill of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they
defend.

Actually, the ACLU has an extremely consistent record of
unconditionally defending civil liberties, without respect to race,
creed, color ... or popularity.

From the ACLU web site:

"Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which
consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three
post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment
(women's suffrage), adopted in 1920."


Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.

On Jun 5, 9:06 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of
the Bill of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they
defend.

Actually, the ACLU has an extremely consistent record of
unconditionally defending civil liberties, without respect to race,
creed, color ... or popularity.

From the ACLU web site:

"Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which
consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three
post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment
(women's suffrage), adopted in 1920."

Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.

Of course not, they are the American Complete Liberals Union after
all...

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.

Against what?