Skip to comments.
Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago
AP via Yahoo ^
| 5/22/08
Posted on 05/22/2008 10:46:31 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,321-1,331 next last
Hmmm
To: ElkGroveDan
The only danger was of an overreaching government sticking their noses in where they are not wanted.
2
posted on
05/22/2008 10:48:03 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: ElkGroveDan
In before gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands!
3
posted on
05/22/2008 10:48:25 AM PDT
by
Domandred
(McCain's 'R' is a typo that has never been corrected)
To: ElkGroveDan
The mob will not be pleased.
4
posted on
05/22/2008 10:49:20 AM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
To: ElkGroveDan
Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago But five minutes ago would have been ok?
To: ElkGroveDan
Very interesting. It seems that those of us who were worried about all that silly 'due process' stuff were right all along.
L
6
posted on
05/22/2008 10:50:30 AM PDT
by
Lurker
(Pimping my blog: http://lurkerslair-lurker.blogspot.com/)
To: Ron Jeremy
That’s just an AP thing that I inadvertantly copied.
7
posted on
05/22/2008 10:51:32 AM PDT
by
ElkGroveDan
(The road to hell is paved with the stones of pragmatism.)
To: lady lawyer
8
posted on
05/22/2008 10:51:55 AM PDT
by
Lurker
(Pimping my blog: http://lurkerslair-lurker.blogspot.com/)
To: Ron Jeremy
I just got your screenname....clever....:-)
9
posted on
05/22/2008 10:52:23 AM PDT
by
Dog
To: ElkGroveDan
The state has found zero abuse or otherwise the appeals court would have ruled otherwise. The warrant should have ended the second they found out that the call was fake.
10
posted on
05/22/2008 10:52:49 AM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
To: ElkGroveDan
11
posted on
05/22/2008 10:53:05 AM PDT
by
Old Mountain man
(Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)
To: ElkGroveDan
Heh. If it hadn’t been “legally and factually insufficient” how would you tell it had been performed by CPS?
12
posted on
05/22/2008 10:53:21 AM PDT
by
668 - Neighbor of the Beast
( Uh...fight SCD. Schwa Collapse Disorder is spreading. Save the a word. Just say uh.)
To: ElkGroveDan
Wow, a ruling for actual liberty and freedom!
I got excoriated by quite a few people here when I suggested that just blindly taking all of these children away from their mothers was unjust.
13
posted on
05/22/2008 10:54:24 AM PDT
by
jpl
("Don't tell me words don't matter." - Barack Obama, via Deval Patrick)
To: ElkGroveDan
Pass the popcorn, this should be good.
14
posted on
05/22/2008 10:54:36 AM PDT
by
rhombus
To: Old Mountain man
They got to release those kids back to their parents.
15
posted on
05/22/2008 10:54:49 AM PDT
by
Dog
To: ElkGroveDan
“child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children...”
Damn right they didn’t! They will deserve every lawsuit that’ll come out of this.
Militant
16
posted on
05/22/2008 10:55:41 AM PDT
by
militant2
("From time to time, the tree of Liberty must be nourished with the blood of tyrants!")
To: ElkGroveDan
No sweat, the CPS will just round them up and bus them back to the ranch, right?
17
posted on
05/22/2008 10:56:14 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: ElkGroveDan
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2008/05/22/judge_cps_improperly_removed_f.html
Judges: CPS improperly removed FLDS children
By Chuck Lindell | Thursday, May 22, 2008, 12:32 PM
A Texas agency improperly removed more than 450 children from a polygamist ranch in West Texas, an Austin appeals court ruled today.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services failed to prove that children at the YFZ Ranch were in danger and needed to be removed from their homes, the 3rd Texas Court of Appeals ruled.
In addition, the appellate court ruled that District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion by failing to return the children after three days of hearings last month.
“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the department contends, there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent,’ as contemplated” by state law, the court opinion states.
18
posted on
05/22/2008 10:56:26 AM PDT
by
deport
( -- Cue Spooky Music --)
To: ElkGroveDan
yeah I know, was just teasing you.
To: ElkGroveDan
I see the appeals court didn’t order a return yet. So it seems the appeal ruling hangs on the definition of what “immediate” is.
20
posted on
05/22/2008 10:56:56 AM PDT
by
DannyTN
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,321-1,331 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson