[originel]

Originally Posted by mad1

My original claim," I'll wager that the ACLU will side against the student."

My second quote," I see the decison from the ACLU will be not to file a lawsuit, thus supporting the stance of the school official."

Your second quote is a logical fallacy. More specifically, it is a vacuous implication. Since you don't seem to be averse in deductive logic, I'll put it differently. You claimed that since the ACLU hasn't stated their support of a cause, then they do not support the cause. This is false though. Since the ACLU has not stated their position, then that means we don't know their position, aka they could be for or against. We cannot truthfully claim to know their position until they have stated it, we can only theorize on what it is.