Crying foul in the courts is only valuable if you have a case. The parameters for legal action are quite narrow. We've gotten entirely too used to the courts mediating all our quarrels, to the point where Court TV and Judge Judy have become entertainment. There have been other ways to settle things, and can be again.

Years ago, but not awfully many, I was involved peripherally in a controversial situation and thought to call the ACLU to get an opinion. The consulting lawyer on the other end (working for free, I might add, as many ACLU lawyers do) advised me to tell my friends that the situation had a legislative/political/electoral solution, and that those solutions are to be pursued first. The ACLU had no interest in altering the law through the courts if the citizens were not devoted enough to representative government to attempt the hard work of persuading the community to support change and correct error.

He was very polite, and I was suitably chastised. The ACLU in practice is different from its legend, which had informed my inquiries.

When a clear Constitutional issue, especially one involving the First, is at stake, the ACLU will step up. They won't waste their time on something with a non-judicial solution if that solution hasn't even been attempted. For all the controversy they attract, they are not a frivolous organization.

Regards--
Mary Anne