I guess the erstwhile “non-partisan” individual rights organization has to do this once in a while so it can claim it hasn’t become the Democratic Party ally that it is, but the gesture is still welcome.
Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the gag order the judge overseeing former President Trump’s federal 2020 election criminal case in D.C. slapped on him is unconstitutionally broad and vague….which, of course, it is.
“Former President, and now Defendant, Donald Trump has said many things,” the ACLU wrote in a court filing. “Much that he has said has been patently false and has caused great harm to countless individuals, as well as to the Republic itself. Some of his words and actions have led him to this criminal indictment, which alleges grave wrongdoing in contempt of the peaceful transition of power. But Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say.”
Naturally, the ACLU doesn’t have the guts to weigh in on Trump’s side without including a gratuitous attack on: can’t have the group’s Trump Deranged supporters taking offense, after all !
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last week granted special counsel Jack Smith’s motion to impose a gag order on Trump barring him and his attorneys from speech that would “target” foreseeable witnesses, prosecutors in the case and court personnel. The gag order is suspended while Trump appeals it.
The ACLU contends the order is so vague that he “cannot possibly know” what he is permitted to say, thus violating Trump’s due process rights. “The entire order hinges on the meaning of the word ‘target,’” the ACLU explains in its brief. “But that meaning is ambiguous, and fails to provide the fair warning that the Constitution demands, especially when, as here, it concerns a prior restraint on speech.”
Great, ACLU: now do the punitive and excessive prosecution and sentencing of the January 6 rioters. Nah, I’m sure that’s too much to ask, but a little non-partisan rights advocacy is still better than none at all.
Ethics Alarms 
Sorry. I couldn’t get past the obligatory Trump bashing intro. It vitiates anything they might have to say.
“Nah, I’m sure that’s too much to ask, but a little non-partisan rights advocacy is still better than none at all.”
Is that a variation on “It Could Be Worse”? When a self-appointed guardian of Civil Liberties proves itself biased in what and whose civil liberties to protect, does it really deserve commendation when it makes a rare grudging concession and argues for fairness for one of its ideological opponents?
No, it’s an inverted #22. #22 would be if I criticized ACLU for being a left-wing shill and it’s defense was, “We’re not ALWAYS leftist shills! Just usually.” That’s essentially the pose of self-banned commenter “A Friend” who excuses the NYT bias exactly that way: “They aren’t as biased as they could be!’
That makes sense.
A Friend’s argument reminds me of those hot-under-the-collar customers we used to get who’d yell at the top of their voice and, when urged to be more civil, would answer, “I’m not yelling! If you want me to yell, I can show you what yelling really is!”
Hopefully those are the customers you then tell to leave before you call the cops.