That still doesn't explain why they are involved with the Heard/Depp case. Or why they were supporting Stacey Abrams' campaign or campaigning against Brett Kavanaugh.
Supporting Stacey Abrams makes absolute sense; she's done more work on the ground for voting rights than any politician at her level. As for Kavanaugh, the ACLU's explanation for their opposition satisfies me. https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/executive-branch/w...
“Board members were clear that if the same concerns were raised about a Democratic Supreme Court nominee — inadequately investigated credible allegations of sexual assault supported by credible testimony and met by nominee testimony showing angry partisanship — we would similarly oppose that nominee.”
That’s a lot of qualifiers! Would they do the same for any potential crime? What about other crimes whose severity, from a social perspective, has changed in the other direction in the years since they were committed? For example, smoking weed was probably considered, contemporaneously, as less forgivable than making unwanted sexual advances. Should we try to dig into whether a nominee passed a blunt in college, since surely that’s a sign of poor past judgment?
By wading into these waters, the ACLU should have airtight argumentation, ideally proactive not reactive. It hasn’t offered much of that, which is why its integrity is being credibly questioned.
“Does this decision change ACLU policy?
No. ACLU policy is not to support or oppose any candidate for elected or appointed office, including Supreme Court justices.”
And supporting Stacey Abrams is in keeping with that…how?
Edit: typos