ACLU Blogburst-"Consistent Inconsistency"

We know that the ACLU were co-counsel in the Terri Schiavo right to die case. They argued with Michael Schiavo's creepy attorney, that Terri was a vegetable, unaware and unable to communicate or to feel pain. Wait a second, aren't these the same people who argued against California's use of lethal injection, stating the drug used "paralyzes the condemned man and would leave him unable to signal if he were in pain." So the liberal legal society doesn't want an inmate to die in pain, but is ok with an innocent brain damaged young lady doing so? Oh, on second thought, she is getting morphine. Why is that? The ACLU has always seemed to be inconsistent in it's views from one case to the next. Especially with pro-death cases.

Lets look at "Mr.Munster" George Felos, their co-counsel, as an example. George Felos is a right to die activist, who changed the law in Florida regarding the classification of feeding tubes to include them as "artificial life support". His motivation? Voices in his head. His book, "Litigation as a Spiritual Practice", is an account of his religious action regarding his clients. The point to be made? If a card carrying member of the Evangelical Church of America tried to use the court system to promote it's religious beliefs in the same way that Felos has, the ACLU would be chomping at the bit...and succeeding in shutting it down, I might add. Yet on the principle of "right to die" the ACLU ignores the principle of separation of "church" (used loosely) and state.

I guess consistency is measured by the heat of the issue at hand? Good day jurisprudence chameleons!

Social bookmark this