For example, the 2008 article was for Obama and the bar for a democratic president is lower so they have to frame the issue at the start.. that even if Obama did nothing and the pandemic actualized into something terrible, he would be praised for preserving liberty. Since they didn't like trump, they set another bar for him and pretended that was the only way forward for civil rights.
> The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous
> • Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities.
> • On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases.
Empirically, that's not true anymore. A lot of people openly state that they'd prefer to get covid than the vaccine, because they'll be fine, And it may even be true that they'll be fine, but they'll go on to spread it to a lot of other people in the process.
So it makes sense that they would revise their view in the face of new data. As their tweet points out, but not quite so bluntly, people who get infected from unvaccinated partying carriers and die cannot really exercise their civil liberties.
How does this argument of 'causing others to die prevents them from exercising civil liberties' apply to other issues the aclu takes on, such as abortion? By your own measure, abortion would be the most heinous form of preventing someone from exercising future civil liberties.
Why can't we just say they changed their minds?