Posted on 05/29/2008 9:43:07 AM PDT by MizSterious
see #19 - CPS was citing the wrong law, re emotional endangerment.
Go here to read a Publishers Weekly review of God and the Gavel - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521703387/findlaw-20
One paragraph which I will have to transcribe reads:
“She is vocal in her criticism of efforts to exempt religious groups from the laws secular organizations must abide by, saving particular disdain by deal-making lawmakers, whom she compares to “hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys.”
11 years ago she was preaching the exact opposite; her body of works is now characterized by a strong pro-child mindset and sets about righting what she as wrongs committed by religious dupes.
I know. That’s what I was responding to.
LOL. Sorry.
Oops, left out ‘sees’ - “...what she sees as wrongs committed by religious dupes.”
What about the pubescent boys? If there is a pattern of abandonment/neglect of pubescent boys, would they be considered in imminent danger?
I have always thought of the ACLU as a bunch against everything I believe in I must re think that after reading this
The more I read the more I believe Texas jumped in and then found out how deep the water was.
With literally no investigation they took on a problem with not enough resources to handle.
Not enough courtrooms or judges they should of brought in more judges for the 14 day hearing.
Not enough housing for kids and mothers.
Not enough child care workers for kids involved.
Not enough states attorneys or investigators.
Not enough lawyers for kids and family's.
As in her other articles on this case, Marci Hamilton does not address why all children were taken, if only five girls are or have been pregnant. She wants us to believe that the existence of polygamy threatens the physical safety of all 450+ children. It does not.
As for all the evidence Hanilton sees - hearsay from a nine-year-old girl, CPS Voss’ statement that all the children “looked frightened” (with 700 law enforcement officers with tanks and guns outside), etc. - that ain’t evidence, folks.
It was CPS who brought up the belifs of the FLDS. And that was a big mistake, because the US Supreme Court has already ruled that a government entity cannot take action against someone based on his/her beliefs.
Beliefs are not the issue here; actions are. Out of 450+ kids, there is evidence that something like five MAY have been abused.
That does not meet the Texas law that all the kids were in imminent danger of being physically or sexually abused, and that CPS made reasonable efforts to not remove the kids.
I am not in favor of polygamy, never have been. That’s not the point.
Your example is a non sequitur because the law against bank robbery has preceded the establishment of a religion based on bank robbery.
The example of polygamy is the opposite. Polygamy existed in this country for a decade or three before the first anti-polygamy laws were passed. Therefore, the laws really did prohibit the free exercise of polygamy religion.
Even so, that isn’t the point I was making. I was saying that the way the professor wants to interpret the First Amendment has the effect of removing the necessity of the free exercise clause. That’s constitutionally frightening, regardless your religion.
Personally, I think the FLDS is wrong in their private interpretation of religion WRT polygamy and related activities. However, that is irrelevant to the point I was making.
Does that sentence bother anyone else as much as it does me? What does it matter what political party the judges belong to? Why impugn the motives of the judges? Weren't they clear in their opinion? Why put "rights" in quotes when associated with religion and parents?
That whole sentence reeks of an agenda that I find troubling.
This afternoon, the Court requested that the mothers file a response to the State’s petition for mandamus — by tomorrow at 9:00am. That short timeline is not incredibly unusual in mandamus actions (for which speed is often critical) and it doesn’t necessarily tip the Court’s hand.
What the Court has done is to expand its range of options. Typically, the Court will not grant mandamus relief until after it has at least requested that the party opposed to relief file a response. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4 (”The court must not grant relief — other than temporary relief — before a response has been filed or requested by the court.”). Having requested a response, the rules now give the Court more latitude to grant the requested mandamus relief for the State in full, rather than just a temporary stay.
So does that signal that the Court is leaning one way or the other? Perhaps not. Typically, the Court will request a response if even a single Justice votes to do so, and it is easy to imagine the Court wanting to see what the mothers have to say about the merits before deciding how to dispose of this case.
Yes.
Now, one must wonder, if this entire episode was not staged by state officials wanting to shortcut the investigations, and who had hoped that public opinion would sway a friendly judge/court into delivering some quick Texas style justice.
Child abuse by the individual or the state is wrong.
Displacing families 450+ children without adequate proof (or viable facts) is also wrong.
Polygamy in my value system is wrong, but the state questioning the religious values and teaching of a group is a greater wrong….and it is the first steps onto the slippery slope.
Her opinion on the matter is just about as valid as if one got an opinion on brain surgery from a proctologist.
This woman wouldn't even have standing to be declared an 'expert' in this Courtroom.
L
Wouldn't you?
L
But there is a law that all children by the age of 1 must have a social security number - thus the need of a birth certificate.
Thats’ fine for kids born in hospitals.
I'm not concerned about it. I think the Court is looking for guidance on some particular aspect.
Cordially,
If the TX Supreme Court upholds the 3rd Appellate’s ruling, will all the children, including those in imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse, be sent back?
Hopefully, CPS and the courts would do it right this time, by giving each of those kids an individual adversary hearing, and presenting real evidence, thereby preserving civil rights and also protecting the kids who need to be protected.
Remember that the first day of the raid the court ordered that only 52 children be removed from the ranch. The second court order stated that ALL children were to be removed.
CPS has and knows the guidelines for handling this case properly; they just need some pushing to do it legally and constitutionally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.