Texas Supreme Court's decision affirms Appellete Court's Polygamist Sect ruling

[Angus]

As I expected, things are put aright. The appellate court has been affirmed.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/may/080391.htm

[burmafrd]

This is an ugly mess any way you want to put it. Technically it only effects the 128 children of the 38 mothers in the suit. It also does not prevent Child Services from putting restrictions and having monitors. Which is probably what should have been done in the first place. But its very interesting to see so many who normally rip the hell out of anything religious at all suddenly backing up a cults followers.

[Angus]

Not backing cult followers;just making sure a rogue agency does not get the idea it can set itself up as a Gestapo. If it doesn't have to follow the law there, it wouldn't have to follow it anywhere.

It is necessary to defend unsavory characters sometimes in order to protect everybody.

:eek:

[theogt]

Not backing cult followers;just making sure a rogue agency does not get the idea it can set itself up as a Gestapo. If it doesn't have to follow the law there, it wouldn't have to follow it anywhere.

It is necessary to defend unsavory characters sometimes in order to protect everybody.

:eek:That description is a bit much. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree as to the question of whether their actions fall within the statute.

You do come off as having some strange defensive posturing for these radical, law-breaking cultists. Very odd. Disturbing, actually.

[Angus]

That description is a bit much. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree as to the question of whether their actions fall within the statute.

You do come off as having some strange defensive posturing for these radical, law-breaking cultists. Very odd. Disturbing, actually.

Not any longer. The Texas Supreme Court has spoken. It is the final judicial authority on what comes within the Texas statute. Aside from a federal constitutional question, if it existed, the matter is decided.

If the legislature later changes the law, the question will be different.

:rolleyes:

[burmafrd]

Rogue agency. Pretty much says all you need to know about Angus.

[peplaw06]

Not any longer. The Texas Supreme Court has spoken. It is the final judicial authority on what comes within the Texas statute. Aside from a federal constitutional question, if it existed, the matter is decided.

If the legislature later changes the law, the question will be different.

:rolleyes:Just because the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion, doesn't mean reasonable minds can't differ. They're one interpretation of the statute. If the Federal Court system got this, or if another panel of judges heard the case, the outcome might be different.

[Angus]

Just because the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion, doesn't mean reasonable minds can't differ. They're one interpretation of the statute. If the Federal Court system got this, or if another panel of judges heard the case, the outcome might be different.

Well, in another state, maybe. But the Texas Supreme Court is the end of the road for a Texas statute, absent a federal question.

I'm surprised so many people here want to stick up for a loose interpretation of the law merely because they don't like who it benefits. I'm not a Mormon, and all my children are grown, but an agency statutorily enabled to interfere with the relationships of parents and their children needs to be held strictly accountable.

:)

[peplaw06]

Well, in another state, maybe. But the Texas Supreme Court is the end of the road for a Texas statute, absent a federal question.I realize that, but it still doesn't mean reasonable people can't differ.

I'm surprised so many people here want to stick up for a loose interpretation of the law merely because they don't like who it benefits. I'm not a Mormon, and all my children are grown, but an agency statutorily enabled to interfere with the relationships of parents and their children needs to be held strictly accountable.Oh I agree trust me. CPS often over-steps their bounds. But you do realize that the Court didn't chastise CPS' actions concerning all of those children, don't you? An undertaking as big as this was, it's impossible to follow their strict protocol with all 400+ kids without this taking years.

And the same with the Court. The Supremes essentially said you didn't prove what you needed on 100-200 of the kids (I forget the exact number). If CPS and the District Judge had gone through each and every child, this would have taken forever. They had an adversarial hearing for 430 kids in about 2 days. The sheer numbers of kids dictated that.

That's the only problem I have with the Appellate and Supreme Courts rulings. In the end this is still a case where the safety of these children has to be the paramount concern. Because of that, and the numbers of the children, it would be reasonable to not be AS strict in the interpretation of the law.

The justices are put in a tough position. Do they a) construe the statute strictly despite the fact that you may be putting these children back in harm's way, or b) err on the side of caution and to a small degree legislate from the bench? In a pretty conservative state, you can see how they came to the decision they did. But sometimes IMO you have to look at the possible results of giving such a strict reading to the statutes.

The legislature can't draft laws that cover every conceivable situation, and this is one of the more bizarre cases you'll ever see. I don't think many would fault the Court if it had decided to fudge the statute a little bit, considering what might happen to them now.

If these children do end up getting pregnant, molested, raped, married to a 50 year old guy with 8 other wives, etc. then how's this decision going to be greeted? It's almost a no win situation.

There have been other cases such as this, first one coming to mind is Korematsu, where the Court has to make a difficult decision for the welfare of a large group of people. Korematsu has gone down as one of the most infamous cases in the nation's history. But if the Court had ordered the release of all the Japanese in the internment camps, and an attack had happened on the mainland, then everyone would have held them responsible for that.