“It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end.”

I often don't like the positions of the ACLU but they do serve a purpose to keep us on our toes about safeguarding liberties.

Under a system of civil liberties there are no safeguards for freedom or liberty. Only a system that ties its safeguards to a faculty of birth understanding of inalienable rights can liberty be safeguarded. History does bear testimony that the current brazen disregard for law, justice, freedom, and liberty is due to the premise of civil origination, defined, and given liberties. I would have given this 100 stars if the concept of 'CIVIL' liberties (as is averse to unalienable liberties) had been stated as 'unalienable liberties or inalienable rights' and civil law had not become such an intrinsic icon of tyranny and despotism during Frankfurter's tenure (also, before and since) . Waffler, I'll make you smile; even though I believe the ACLU to be a deplorable group and an enemy to law, order, morality and justice in general, they have on occasion been known to be on the right side of an issue.

It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end." Another five for Felix. Signs are becoming too close for comfort and more brazen with regard to 'liberty extinguished'. It looks like we are in for another "false-flag" incident. Mike did you read the quote correctly? - Civil liberties flows from inalienable rights. Mike, Felix may not have said precisely the way you would have him say it but for me his heart and essence was in the right place.

Robert, if Felix meant that civil rights are merely a category of inalienable rights, I did misread it and, if that is what he meant, 5 stars Xs 10

Good call, Mike, you make a good distinction. Keep in mind that by this date, the common law jurisdiction and common law courts were 'merged' with the commercial law jurisdiction thus creating a 'civil law' jurisdiction. Felix tries to protect the basic tenets of common law, but indeed, it is civil law that is the jurisdiction he represented. Living breathing non-commercial people (not persons) are not within the commercial law jurisdiction. Commercial 'persons' (including corporations) have NO inalienable rights only civil licenses which we call 'civil rights' when applied to corporate 'persons.' Again, the corruption of the justice system and the ABA have twisted the meanings of words so much that when someone actually tells the truth about it, even a lawyer doesn't know what they are talking about.

Mike's gut instinct is on point, as Archer provides the nuts and bolts. Language is precise. The intent to subvert ushering in soft socialism, insurance schemes cooked up by WC and FDR along with the 140.000 incarcerated by FDR extending the reach of "legalized plunder" by force !

Sorry, I don't understand the point your judgeship is making, or where this quote is leading.  Nevertheless, Socialism is the challenge of socialized behavior to create.