Liberals are pathetic! They support coke whores and Neo-Nazis!

Dude the ACLU RULES!!!!!

So you mean to tell me that in before 1977 Republicans weren't allowed to walk the streets. And on top of that in 2001 we allowed Ann Coulter to have a baby, what a glorious place America once was.

The only theory I was able to come up with, was there goal was to do comedy as well as there hero George bush runs this country.

In that case they have done a great job.

i think if women are allowed to kill a baby they are carrying, they should be allowed to give it a nice coke buzz first.

equal rights to drugs for all, thats my motto. unless youre some kind of pangloss-in which case you should be shot and put out of my misery.

Good on the ACLU if they helped give pregnant women the freedom to use coke.

I mean if you want a govenment looking over the peoples shoulders at every turn go live in a totalitarian state.

Being free means having the freedom to be a stupid coke snorting mom-to-be ahole in my opinion.

But what do i know anyway? ;o)

I just loved this idea on the Kung Fu Monkey commentary:

Somebody should redub the laugh track to insert an awkward pause after each "punchline" and then conclude it with a giant laughing at the stupididy rather than laughing about the jokes.

How dare the ACLU support the upholding of the US Constitution! Shame on them and shame on the Supreme Court for defending the civil liberties of US citizens. Way to go Fox News.

The guy tries hard to be colbertly funny.

There are a lot of bad things out there in this big old world of ours... But if you gotta make the ACLU your boogieman -- gimme a break.

I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I became that because one day it suddenly dawned on me that despite certain disagreements I do have with the organization, the idea of its not existing at all--particularly in this political climate--is just bone-chilling.

I'm truly at a loss here. I don't know if that is just comedian incompetence or if they really think the ACLU is for nazis and junkies, even though they keep repeating that the ACLU is only helping criminals, gays or NAMBLA...? And if they thought that - why would they laugh at it?

I didn't laugh, of course, not a bit. But not because it wasn't funny (which it obviously isn't). And not even because it was so bad, either. I truly don't understand the thinking behind it. The conservative mind, or rather: the FOX watcher's mind, is totally strange to me. On what planet are they living???

Not only do they miss the point, they fail to be funny. Political comedy from Fox? Bring it on! It amuses me only how stupid they are.

It's probably not even really supposed to be funny. It's just window dressing for what they will attempt to pass off as legitimate thought later on. Bastards infuriate me.

Wow. That was incredibly painful. What news channel gets a comedy show anyway?

Pain.

You could be right RB… I know I didn't get it, was it supposed to be ironic or satirical? All I saw was a dark surrealism on difficult subjects and the people (ACLU) brave enough to address the issues. All one has to do is consider where we would be without their work.

I don't find this above clip or other stuff from what I have seen from this show at all funny. Everything I have seen comes across as very vindictive and bitter. What they should do, is make fun of situations and more irony. Some of the essence of comedy is timing, and right now their timing of their jokes are off a bit.

One reason that "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are funny is that they  use much irony in their skits.  They also make fun of the TV news business by having the reporters be the focus of the joke at times.

"The 1/2 Hour News Show" could be funny if got their timing better, stop using anger and bitterness as their main focus as their jokes. I thought their Barack Obama jokes were racist and just petty. Make fun of self importance and the canned rhetoric that comes out of politicans mouths. Jokes like sarcasm reveals more of the joke teller than the subject matter, and whoever is the main writer/s of "1/2 Hour News Hour" has some serious anger problems, no matter what the subject is about or the political bent.

These guys do realize that 1977 was 30 fucking years ago, and their target audience was most likely barely a gleam in their parents' eyes at that point?

What next - jokes about punk rockers with safety pins through their noses?

They got it wrong, not surprisingly. I read those cases, and the cocaine case for example had the following facts: The cops contacted a hospital and persuaded the hospital staff and doctors to require pregnant women that came to the hospital seeking medical attention to take a blood test. The blood test was specifically made for the purpose of testing the woman for cocaine and other drugs, to prevent the problem of addicted babies that were born from addict mothers. The hospital agreed, and the result was that a woman who sought medical attention for a pregnancy had to have this drug test taken, and if she tested positive, was in effect forced to either stop all drug use and begin a drug treatment program or go to jail. This program was of course challenged and the supreme court was finally faced with the natural and ultimate consequences of their past decisions: allowing searches based on no reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion of any and all women who came to the hospital seeking pre-natal care. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the program unconstitutional. My point is talking about the facts of that case, is to point out that there is a lot more to an issue like whether people can be drug tested or not. The court had to consider not only the rights of the women not to be searched in this way, but also the rights of the fetus and the state interest in preventing drug use and addicted babies. in the end the court had to draw a line somewhere, because its past decisions were so broad that they threatened to make the whole 4th amendment irrelevant. I could go on and on on this issue, but you get the point. Programs like this only deal with the results, and it sounds nice when you put it really simply, but constitutional cases are never simple.

There was a time before 1977 that white supremacist groups were forced to live in the shadows? What, for about 2 years before that?

I don't like everything that the ACLU does, but the conservative hatred of the group illustrates very clearly that American conservatism is not a philosophy of individual liberty.

Thanks to the ACLU Republicans and Fox News can air racist materials without being censored. Thanks to the ACLU drug addicted Rush Limbaugh can have his medical records kept private. Thanks to the ACLU Ted Haggard can give blow jobs to fellow gays without going to jail. Thanks to the ACLU George Bush can get his 15 year old girlfriend pregnant and get her an abortion.

For hating the ACLU so much the conservatives sure do love the freedoms they protect.

I'm a little confused. So Fox is against neo-Nazis? I would have never thought that.

I remember watching a video about the Skokie case in high school and feeling a moment of pride to live in this country. It really says something great about a place where even a group as awful as neo-Nazis can speak out in public, provided the demonstration is peaceful, and have their right to do so defended adamantly and protected by the highest court in the land. Watching this clip now I felt a little of that again, ironically enough. Freedom of speech is meaningless if only pleasant, agreeable speech is protected. If people want to protest in a non-threatening way outside abortion clinics, they should absolutely do that. Throwing things at people, or planting bombs, etc., that's obviously a different story.

Someone correct me if I'm misremembering, but I think one of the chief lawyers in that Skokie case was Jewish, actually.

Wow, I am truly amazed at this. I literally sat through these clips without cracking a smile.

The only thing I found funny is that, unlike the shows this one is trying to emulate (TDS & Colbert, I suppose), this show needs a very obvious laugh track to tell it's viewers when to think something is funny.

"Probable cause is a burden no police department should have bear."

wicked sarcasm, norm. i,for one, appreciate your commentary on these things, as well as your posting them.

Did you know that all you have to do is refuse permission if you don't want to be searched. Probable cause is a burden no police department should have bear.

Not all searches warrant probable cause. Terry Patdown searches need only reasonable suspicion. That is the lowest standard you need actually. For Search Warrants, this is where probable cause comes into play. If an office asks if he can check your car or house, deny them the opportunity. Simply denying a Warranted Search will not stop a search because the affirmation of probable cause has been clearly documented in the written affidavit. You can of course take measures yourself to stop "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Read the warrant carefully and make sure that the police do not, for example, search the entire house as these warrants are limited only to particular zones as dictated by the judge. Make note also of the time in which the officers may make the search since there are time constraints under which these searches may be executed. If something is seen while walking toward the area to be searched, that is covered under the plain view doctrine.

Sorry, I'm a crim major. I'll shut up now.

Opps, I forgot to add in that: "When a person gives consent to search, he forgoes his right to require the police to obtain a search warrant." That sentence should have come before "Simply denying a..."

Here are some exceptions to a warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment:

1. Exigent circumstances
2. Stop and frisk
3. Search incident to arrest
4. Custodial
5. Plain view
6. Vehicle
7. Border
8. Open fields
9. Abandoned property
10. Consent (Don't even think about it!)
11. Administrative
12. Probation search
13. Protective sweep

P.S.: FOX is a joke.

Got nothing to add this this thread, other than to say that it's excellent... That's a lot of good comments -- informed, intelligent. Very cool.

I'm all for the right wing developing their sense of humor. Unfortunately this show isn't helping.

Regardless of whether this is funny or not, ultimatly it isn't about the comedy, it is pandering to an audience.
People who watch Fox do so because they want to see Liberal values, and the people who hold them, attacked, regardless of merit, and this is another outlet for that.

This show is so extremely terrible and in such bad taste, I highly doubt it can last any amount of time, even with its target audience.

Okay, since we are getting technical here, here is another pointer on interrogations. When a cop reads Miranda rights, what he is essentially doing is having you waive your constitutional rights to not incriminate yourself. So if a cop reads Miranda, and you say you will not talk, then he has to shut up and not interrogate you (for at least 12 minutes), then he can make another attempt at asking you questions. (why 12 minutes, b/c that was how long one court said was reasonable) On the other hand if you say that you want to speak to an attorney, then the interrogation must immediately terminate, and anything said after that cant be used against you. Also, Miranda and the exclusionary rule that goes with it only covers speech, so if you tell a cop "the body is under my house" and this is said during an illigal interrogation, your comments wont be used against you, but the body can certainly be brought into evidence. The other thing about searches is this: most of the time people consent to a search, the courts have ruled that tehre is no requirement for a knowing consent, so there is no Mirana equivalent for searches. Most people dont realize that nodding your head or just stepping out of the way of the cop is enough for him to search. You have to affirmatively stand up for your rights and say "NO, I do not consent to a search of my car/house" Okay, ill shut up now too.

I feel really bad for conservatives. It must be so hard to have suffered discrimination and mockery for so long. It's not easy being wealthy, white and male in this country. I commend Surnow and Fox for having the bravery to not choose anger but to laugh and to share those laughs with us.

4th Amendment exclusionary rule is probabaly not the best example of ACLU's triumphs, and should not be a basis for any condemnation of ACLU's overly liberal attitudes. Erick above does a very good, albeit superficial, job listing a multitude of exceptions to the rule. Since it was first applied to the states in Brady, the exclusionary rule's protection has undergone a steady erosion, to the extent where many legal scholars think that given the current composition of the court it may altogether disappear. This is especially apparrent in light of recently decided Hudson, a 3-6 decision where Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Although the case involved a very minor issue involving searches and seizures, the dicta (language in the case that is not a holding, but merely explanatory or not bearing on the main issues) suggests the Court's (or Scalia's) favoritism of the 1983 stautory remedy, which is a civil claim against the government for violating one's civil rights. It's not mild favoritism either. The language he uses gives an impression as if he were enamored with that civil remedy. Knowing Scalia that is hardly the case, suggesting that he is only willing to advance that as a remedy in order to condemn the exclusion of evidence.

Fortunately the withering of the rule on the federal level, and as applied to the States will affect you only if you're driving through Texas (or one or two other "progressive" states). Currently, the overwhelming majority of the states provide much greater protections (as imbeded in many of their constitutions) than the Supreme Court precedents involving the exclusionary rule.

I've been procrastinating on getting an ACLU card for some time now. Thank you FOX for the reminder! Off I go.

The immense level of pride I feel is overwhelming. I feel like laminating my card right this minute so that I can better use it to chop up the 8 ball I just bought...

The immense level of pride I feel is overwhelming. I feel like laminating my card right this minute so that I can better use it to chop up the 8 ball I just bought...

i still don't get it. how is this funny???

This one was just plain horrible. The only context that this is funny in is a parody of the ridiculous hate from the right towards the ACLU, in other words, their attempt at ripping the ACLU really just makes them look like colosal a-holes.

Has this show been cancelled yet?

Minor correction for my post above. The leading case that applied the federal exclusionary rule to the states was Katz

Actually, it was funny. It's just indicative of the liberal mentality to not be tolerant of any viewpoint that is critical of their fascist world view.

Liberals don't seem to care much about free speech when you're supporting banning an NBA player for comments you don't agree with, or demonizing an entertainer for racial slurs you don't agree with, or coming up with language laws for campuses, etc. Keep rolling out the double standards.

Umm, I don't think you understand what ACLU does. Irrespective of liberal mentality, ACLU is fairly consistent on their stance concerning fundamental rights, which is why the same precedent protecting skinheads' free speech allowed the Boy Scouts of America to exclude homosexuals from membership in their organization, just as it would apply in a similar fashion to any other group whose speech or freedom of association is being curtailed by a state actor. So if anything the clip is indicative of is that ACLU rarely "rolls out" double standards. So incognito, unless you are just trying to be inflammatory (or possibly sarcastic?) without any substantive merit to your claims ACLU champions precisely the kind of tolerance you claim they lack. Remember, that tolerance does not mean agreeing or liking the person's statements, but rather respecting the person's right to speak. I highly doubt that anyone in ACLU likes skinheads, or that most liberals would not demonize a skinhead making racist statements, but within limit their right to make those statements must not be impinged upon by the government. So Anonymous, while I disagree with what you say, i respect your right to say that. Unfortunately for you the protection of the 1st Amendment is ineffectual against most private actors, like Norm who may choose to moderate if he finds you disruptive.

Anonymous should approve of the laws in many European countries in which hate speech is against the law and therefore he doesn't approve of this aspect of the ACLU.

Either that, or Anonymous finds nothing repugnant about racist speech and is therefore against this aspect of the ACLU.

However, Anonymous probably hates both Yurpeens and Libruls and wishes that they'd leave him alone and allow him to spew forth his hate speech without anyone saying anything about it.

Actually, Anonymous just thinks it's really funny how liberals are so full of themselves and so deluded.

Look at yourselves. The person who runs this blog posts clips of a comedy show that makes fun of his viewpoint, repeatedly saying "this isn't funny" and "this isn't pathetic". Now, admittedly, some of the jokes proferred on this obviously biased show weren't clever or funny. But some were. The problem is, just like the people you claim to be superior to, you think you're unmockable. You blindly believe a dogmatic ideology, and any threat to that or mocking of that must be eradicated. You have no sense of humor about yourselves because you think you're too important to joke about.

This was a funny segment pointing out that the ACLU ends up backing some seriously unpopular - and sometimes asinine - positions.

And there is no denying that liberalism has become a fascist doctrine. Look at the iron grip that PC mentality has on our college campuses. It's insane.

"I highly doubt that anyone in ACLU likes skinheads, or that most liberals would not demonize a skinhead making racist statements, but within limit their right to make those statements must not be impinged upon by the government."

Of course. Yet most liberals don't actually believe that. They believe that certain groups of people should be protected from any slight, insult, or possible discomfort at any cost to our liberties.

Admittedly it is a difficult position to defend hate speech. Dittoheads like Jo Ann are sure to try to insinuate that really, you just want to walk around spewing hate. But of course that's not the case. Funny that Jo Ann would adopt that position, yet find this clip unfunny - as it adopts the same position she did. But then again, she's probably too busy packing for that oft-stated intended move to Canada to fully form her opinion.

Joe_Average/TieThatBlinds has an obsession with posting here even though Norm has attempted many times to ban him. Poor fellow.

Second anonymous, are you a separate entity or do you just like referring to yourself in third-person?

anon writes:"Funny that Jo Ann would adopt that position, yet find this clip unfunny - as it adopts the same position she did." neither jo ann nor most of the other posters here,nor anyone with half a brain- or a functioning funnybone- would find a clip funny or unfunny based on its' "position". yet you, o brave nameless person, speak as if this is quite normal in your world, and you are merely pointing out that, as you see it, different people find different things funny depending on the political viewpoints of the butts.

well, i have met people like that, but i don't like 'em. they have no senses of humour.

The ACLU has been destroying our country from the inside for some 80 years now. They put the defense of the morally unjust before the value of being a good person and society.
And to the ACLU... Get the fuck out of Hazleton!

I think its funny how conservatives seem to think that by expressing our distaste for such a retarded show means we want a law to take it off the air or something.

get the fuck over yourself, "anonymous." I think it's great this show came on the air, because it gives us a chance to redicule how stupid your mentality is. Inherently, this also means I support your right to come on here and attempt to bash liberals, cause once again you just hand me all the ammunition i need.

language laws for campuses? hahahaha, are you in college or have you been? Only private (KEYWORD PRIVATE) universities and schools can actually enforce any seriously restrictive language policy - public schools and universities have to play by the first amendment and thus their language rules only state when and where you can speak. I'm curious if you have actually been to a college campus and spoken with administrators, professors, or students about this. I go to a liberal private university in the heart of chicago, WHICH JUST RECENTLY HAD A HUGE RACISM INCIDENT, and our language policy is still almost completely unrestricting.

You want to talk about restricting speech? How about you go to Liberty University where biology teachers have to sign an affidt disowning evolution. Them conservatives sure do love freedom of speech!

You are so painfully misinformed it makes this entertaining.

I suppose it's funny if you believe incorrect stereotypes and have thoroughly species understanding of the world around you. But I don't, so I didn't get the joke. Or rather I should say that I understood what the joke was supposed to be, but knew the real story behind it, so it wasn't funny.

Oops. Specious, not species.

Anonymous: do you know what fascist means? Or that the ACLU protects the right to speak? That's why they were defending the right of Nazis to have a rally. It doesn't mean they agree with their ideology. Anonymous, you have something on your hands....oh yeah, it's blood. You can jump off your sinking ship if you want though, before it gets too late.

I've done pro bono work with ACLU. From what I gathered, the main criticisms of the organization often stem from lack of understanding of the legal principles under which the ACLU (and for that matter the Supreme Court) operates. Of course, the lack of understanding is prevalent among those who seek ACLU's help, too. Approximately 85 percent of all cases are rejected, because they either don't involve a cognizable claim, or involve legal issues better handled by other free legal support organizations (legal aid, etc.). Statements suggesting that ACLU is a scourge that seeks to promote the rights of the minority groups at the expense of other people's rights are a byproduct of misinformation and ignorance, for which media is partially responsible. If that happens to be the case, rather than spouting further fallacies, one should present a concrete example of somebody's rights being impinged upon because of ACLU's actions. Of course, people have to remember, that not everything is a constitutional right. People on both sides of the equation frequently forget that. Simply because Neo-Nazi's have a constitutionally guaranteed right to peacefully assemble and engage in an exercise of free speech, doesn't mean that inciting violence will be protected as well. That also doesn't mean that allowing them to hold a rally, despite their hateful views infringes on the rights of those who would like them silenced. The government is not a tool one should look to whenever they want to suppress someone's hateful words any time they disagree with the message.