Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
1. The standard that the judge had to use to make a decision was whether a child 1) had been abused or 2) was in imminent danger of abuse.
This was what the ACLU said as reported by Catholic News:
I have a problem with the idea that infants are in imminent danger of abuse, or that every child is in imminent danger of abuse.
2. The lack of hearings for each child to consider that child's unique circumstances. There are reports that some children were visiting and had been there for only a few days. Again from the ACLU:
From the SL Tribune:
3. The judge not responding to objections from lawyers representing parents and the children. Hence the AP calling the hearing "a farce":
That is not careful consideration.
From the DN:
4. In some cases lawyers volunteered to represent infants and toddlers and were provided no information by the state as to why they were seeking to remove custody from the parents.
5. Lastly, this is not a legal argument, but an argument that the judge has admitted, I think, to being incompetent and unable to handle the case:
There is only reason she described herself as "simple." The way she has handled the case demonstrates exactly that. |
The big point that you have glossed over Mike is that this a decision made on a temporary basis that has to be reviewed fairly quickly and on an individual basis. If that were not to occur, then I would agree that there is a due process problem.
This is obviously an emotional issue for you but what you lack the sophistication to understand because your background is not in the law is that none of these constitutional principles are absolutes and that all of them give way to other principles at times.
I have tried to explain, and you have so far ignored, the idea that there is a balancing that occurs where we err on the side of protecting the children at the expense of the right of the parents and that we accept this for two reasons. The first is that is it temporary. The second is that the evil of abuse is worse than the evil of a temporary deprivation of rights. It is the same reason that you might be held without bail if you are accused of a murder. The danger to others outweighs your right to be free until a determination of guilt occurs. The law is filled with these trade offs and compromises.
There is some subtlety to the idea of due process and reading a few news paper clippings no more qualifies you for a substantive understanding of it than me riding in coach qualifies me to fly the plane. If you had just asked, rather than asking me where I went to law school because I disagreed with you, you might have stood a shot at getting an explanation from me.
I am still perplexed that so many of you think that temporarily depriving people of their children until individual review hearings can be had is a greater mischief than returning children to a pedophilia cult. I think it is a result of a skeptical view of the government and of a very limited understanding of the principles of law at work.
Now, you can ignore all of this because it doesn't fit into your narrative if you wish. Or you can just say that you think the judge made the wrong conclusion based on the available evidence. That is your right. But seriously, lets stop talking about due process conversation because the collective understanding around here of that concept is generously 1 on a scale that goes to 10. If you want to stop being insulting I might even expound it for you.