Can we force Texas to secede already?

[kowboy]

I loves me some 3rd District Court of Appeals in Texas like I love watching "The Girls Next Door" on the E! channel. Which is to say I don't, except in the part of me that likes be surprised at how stupid a person can actually be and obtain a position of prominence in our culture

Comments

[faerieburst]

Um, you are leaving some very important points out here

[kowboy]

Oh I have no doubt about the legality of returning the children based on an anonymous claim that later turned out to be false. To be honest, I sort of agree with them in this one instance because you are perfectly correct in stating CPS and the Texas AG completely over-stepped their authority in refusing to return the children to their families after it was determined there was no imminent threat of harm.

I was simply pointing out the irony of a court that returns children to admitted felons (bigamy is a class 3 felony in Texas) in this case while removing them from others.

[faerieburst]

But your post feels like you are castigating them...and it reads like you think they were wrong for ordering the return.

I'm personally glad they got it right this time.

~Aramada

[kowboy]

Sorry about that, I had ten minutes between meetings to gather my thoughts and post something before heading back. I should have processed it a tad more carefully. The judges in the Texas judicial system stick in my craw because they only seem to "get it right" when it suits their perceived constituency. In this case, my "cultural warrior" buzzer began going off. It's the same one that went off when the TCOA refused to grant sole custody to the grandparents of a young boy after the mother (their daughter-in-law) confessed to murdering him for profit. She was white, Christian, and from Texas, which made it a private family matter that's second only to gun rights for most Texans as far as needing protection is concerned.

[kowboy]

Sorry. I meant she'd confessed to murdering their son, the father of the boy.

[faerieburst]

"The judges in the Texas judicial system stick in
my craw because they only seem to "get it right" when it suits their
perceived constituency. "

I can appreciate that, but it makes this case even MORE of a reason to give them kudos. 'Cause I guarantee you that an offshoot polygamous sect of the Mormons is NOT their "perceived constituency". If they had wanted to appeal to their standard constituency, they would have allowed CPS to keep the kids 'cause those people are a "weird cult" and they do family different and so they MUST be harming the kids, right? Instead, they applied the law equally and evenly, and I love seeing that happen.

Also, these aren't "Texas judges" in this case. This was a federal appeals third district court, which just happens to have the seat in Texas.

~Aramada

[kowboy]

Actually, they are Texas judges as it was in the 3rd District Court of Appeals for Texas in Austin, at least according to the opinion. ;-)

I also find it interesting that in their opinion they fairly tightly parse out Texas law. They admit there were several minor girls who were pregnant at the time of the raid on their ranch. They also admit several women and girls had admitted to being pregnant prior as minors with some as young as 13 when being impregnated. But it gets weird when they then go on to state the presence of pregnant minors is not grounds for assuming risk to other minors, which would be true is the literature of the group in question did not openly advocate for the marriage and sexual initiation of minor girls to adult males. The court danced around that fact by ignoring it completely, preferring to treat the circumstances as if the CPS had raided an apartment complex in downtown Houston. It's also interesting that no mention was made of bigamist "weddings" to these same pregnant minors in violation of Texas

[faerieburst]

Ah, it was the third district of Texas, not the third district of the federal system. Mea culpa on that one!

~Aramada

[kowboy]

It's perfectly understandable. That was my assumption when I read it as well. My second thought was, "Oh my Lord help us all if the 3rd has move to San Antonio!"

On a side note, was it the 3rd or the 5th that ruled a death row inmate had received proper representation from a public defender that slept through more than half of his trial?

[faerieburst]

Not sure off the top of my head. And honestly, I don't think my blood pressure can take looking it up today. It has been a day CHOCK FULL of stupid, let me tell ya.

::smiles::

~Aramada