04-23-2008, 04:01 PM | #11 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
|
|
04-23-2008, 04:32 PM | #12 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
|
Fortunately you have said one thing that is good:
Quote:
QED. |
|
04-23-2008, 04:45 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
This isn't my field, but I do know that in terms of "due process" and allied concerns the parents' interests are always subordinate to the best interests of the child. This is often the hardest part for divorcing spouses who want to wage a scorched earth fight over custody to realize. The court doesn't care who has lied or committed adultery, etc. The question is "what's best for the child?" I'd probably have to recuse myself from these proceedings because my strong bias would be to rule all these kids would be better off with new parents whether they've been abused or not.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
04-23-2008, 04:46 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
I haven't followed the case closely, and perhaps I should do so. I agree on the surface there are substantial due process concerns, and due process is the guardian of all of our rights. Whenever it is threatened, we should all tremble.
Due process takes time, and hopefully that is where they are headed. |
04-23-2008, 04:48 PM | #15 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
|
Quote:
|
|
04-23-2008, 04:48 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
04-23-2008, 05:29 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
|
the fact that in Texas judges are nothing more than elected politicians makes abuses by them more likely as they seek nothing more than to be popular in the community so they can be reelected. And then of course the lawyers who bring cases to them contribute to their campaigns, creating a huge conflict of interest.
|
04-23-2008, 05:35 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 699
|
Quote:
__________________
He's down by the creek, walkin' on water. K-dog P.S. Grrrrrrrrr |
|
04-23-2008, 06:01 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
Do you know of atty's that say a Judge they might eventually appear in front of sucks. I understand why now too. Those Judges have a lot of power. |
|
04-23-2008, 06:28 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo Last edited by UtahDan; 04-23-2008 at 07:36 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|