Of the hallmarks of the left, one of the most difficult to stomach is the selective indignation and outrage. Liberals are quick to wrap themselves in a mantle of the Constitution, due process, personal liberty, and doing things “for the children” – but only when it suits the cause. They can abandon these same principles, often with astonishing speed, when the issues run afoul of causes they hold more dearly.

The NAACP, for example, pleaded for patience in the case surrounding alleged dog fighting kingpin Michael Vick. Despite the sheer gravity of a government indictment, seven witnesses, and what is expected to be a mountain of forensic evidence, the group maintains that he is innocent until proven guilty. R. L. White of the Atlanta chapter said, "If Mr. Vick is guilty, he should pay for his crime, but to treat him as he is being treated now is also a crime. Be restrained in your premature judgment until the legal process is completed."

Wise words, but it doesn’t look good for Vick. The government doesn’t take a case like his if they don’t think they can win, and now they have co-defendants ready to drop a dime on the Falcons’ quarterback.

Contrast this with the Duke lacrosse case, where “restraint” was trampled underfoot by a veritable stampede of “premature judgment.” There, an exotic dancer with libertine tendencies and a memory like a sieve was to be taken at her word. Even after the Duke players had been cleared, Reverend John Fredlaw of the NAACP’s North Carolina chapter said, "Something had to have happened for this young lady to have gone to the district attorney in that county to draw up some charges."

Perhaps. Then again, something must have “happened” for the feds to roll a backhoe onto Mike Vick’s lawn and start tearing up the place. Clearly, the NAACP’s myopic and retroactive vision of “social justice” trumped due process, even though in the Duke case an injustice had been served.

Here in New Jersey, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group that owns some beachfront property, got into trouble for denying a same-sex couple the use of a pavilion on their land. The group rejected an application for the couple’s wedding ceremony on the grounds that it would violate Methodist principles regarding marriage.

The couple filed a complaint with the Division on Civil Rights, prompting an investigation. The OGCMA, in turn, sued the state, claiming the agency had threatened to force the group into allowing the ceremony.

While the case is still pending, it will be interesting to see where the ACLU sides on this one. This is the same group that is so quick to invoke separation of church and state every time a high school football team dares to kneel in prayer. But the “wall of separation” - a metaphor that has all but replaced the actual language in the Constitution it represents - was more intended to keep government out of religion (not the other way around).

So, if ever there were a case that should pique the interest of the self-anointed defenders of the Establishment Clause, this is it. A state agency applying pressure to, and possibly threatening, a religious group? Katie bar the door!

So far, the ACLU’s silence is telling. Separation of church and state isn’t so important anymore, not when it’s pitted against a liberal shibboleth like “marriage equality.”

And in New York City, Councilman James Gennaro has proposed a ban on smoking in cars if children under 18 are present.

When he was countered by concerns over privacy and personal freedom, Gennaro came back with a snotty retort. "Boo-hoo," he said, "you can't subject kids to 43 carcinogens and 250 poisonous chemicals and claim privacy. Get over it. Their right to privacy doesn't extend so far as to poisoning kids."

Mr. Gennaro is clearly indignant over the mere idea of being questioned. When children are involved, we need to “get over” legitimate concerns about government intrusion.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg, erstwhile RINO turned independent, added that people should have the right to smoke in their own cars, but "if it's a child in the car, who doesn't have the ability to speak up and protect themselves, then society does start to have an interest."

Perhaps hizzoner should be commended for wanting to protect the innocent. However, substitute “car” for “womb” in his statement and, undoubtedly, societal interest would take a back seat to “reproductive rights.”

Whether it’s the NAACP, ACLU, or busybody politicians, we should expect that principles drive policy. Instead, we are to infer that due process, separation of church and state, and protecting the health of children are but lofty guidelines meant to be overruled by higher tenets of the faith.

Because a principle that can be trumped is not a principle at all.