Never heard of this organization, and this is one of the first results I found with a good bit of background on it: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Al...
The site describes them as "a 501(c)(3) right-wing litigation group"
The site describes them as "a 501(c)(3) right-wing litigation group"
Does the CDC have that authority. Support the action or not, seems weird that the CDC can do that.
> Filed Amicus Briefs in Support of Koch-Backed Organizations
No specific cases mentioned, just the Koch boogeyman. Koch is the left's Soros.
> NCLA filed an amicus brief supporting tech multinational Oracle against the Department of Labor and has represented FDRLST Media, LLC, _which owns The Federalist_, in a labor case.
More ad hominem. I bet they'd call the ACLU "right wing" for supporting the KKK.
> NCLA attacked the Supreme Court's Chevron decision in a 2019 legal challenge to a ban on bump stocks.
2nd Amendment seems in scope of a Civil Liberties charity.
___________
I think you can learn all you need to know about that website by just looking at their logo.
"Right-wing" extremism is an identified threat(1), and seems to be more mainstream amongst those on that side of the aisle.
I abhor partisanship and my belief/value system is open to refinement as compelling information/insights become available. As someone who would likely be called a "leftist" (not my choice or identity) I yearn for a balance where thoughtful conservatism can keep the the excesses of the left in check, rather than the scorched earth policy I see today.
1. https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/confronting-white-suprema...
Funny, because you could say the same about the ACLU, but swap progressive/conservative.
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...
"a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case." [1] [2]
[1] https://www.axios.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speec...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...
Your list looks impressive. But what cases did they choose to not accept that aren't listed there?
Now it apparently means "subscribes to currently trendy theories of social justice."
However, that was a very specific and rather recent change. ACLU before that change can still be seen as a model organization that threw its weight behind causes regardless of whether they were "left wing" or "right wing", so long as one of its principles were affected.
If you agree that NCLA is objectively right-wing in their supported causes, then that’s all that matters here.
I deliberately parodied your words. If you think a non-profit should be non-partisan (a reasonable argument, by the way), then Media Matters should be as well. Correct?
Or maybe a vast number of 501(c)(3) organizations support only causes associated with one side or the other, and your criticism is highly selective.
Notice I didn’t say all non-profits should be non-partisan.
I said that organizations concerned with civil liberties should pursue those rights in a non-partisan manner if their intentions are genuine.
Non-profits are free to adopt whatever slant on civil liberties or any other issue they care about, as long as they don't support political candidates or parties, or otherwise violate the IRS's rules.
Can they be credible if don't support any right wing causes?
That seems naive. LGBTQ organizations are going to naturally bias heavily liberal. The NRA is naturally going to bias heavily conservative. Quite a few of our civil liberties are deeply partisan.