Activist Judges

When the left says we have a “living constitution,” what they mean is that it must be interpreted in light of modern liberal principles. One of these principles is that the State knows best when it comes to indoctrinating your children. For instance, the State can’t possibly allow the tender minds of third graders to recite the pledge of allegience, but we can ask them detailed questions like have they been, “Touching my private parts too much,” or “Thinking about having sex,” or “Thinking about touching other people’s private parts,” or “Thinking about sex when I don’t want to.”

We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. Fields v. Palmdale School District

The 9th circuit has decided that after parents choose to take their children to public school that they have no more rights regarding their care and education, not when it's something as important as a psychological survey.

In other words, parents suck. They don't know what's best for their own children, school administrators do, and if school administrators want to ask your child sexual questions then they can do as they damn well please. The opinion went on to say that education is not limited to the three R's but can encompass any social agenda they wish to advance in guise of serving, "higher civic and social functions, including the rearing of children into healthy, productive, and responsible adults".

In fine, education is not merely about teaching the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Education serves higher civic and social functions, including the rearing of children into healthy, productive, and responsible adults and the cultivation of talented and qualified leaders of diverse backgrounds. Fields v. Palmdale School District

Quite preposterous.

What's funny is that this is always what the left does in practice. They take away your rights. They reinterpret your 'living' rights in such a way so as to transfer your rights to the State and then tell you that they have given you new freedom. Woohoo!

Activist judges are those who start with the presumption that all sovereignty resides first in the State, rather than all rights being derived first in the individual. For the left it is group rights that are paramount and individual rights that are expendable. I guess it takes a village to raise a child, huh?

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 3, 2005 9:43 PM
Comments
Comment #90407

Eric,

The liberal humanists (progressives) have controlled the public education system for decades. If you value your family, you will rather go hungry and homeless than abandon your children to public schools.

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 5:55 AM
Comment #90416

Eric,

It’s what ‘they’ call progress.
Unfortunately, if ‘they’ get it their way, we will continue to see the destruction of our society.
A little at a time our children are being ‘programmed’. No more ‘mind of your own’. Having your own mind, and thoughts, is a dangerous thing.

These same people call for open borders. Just look at France and see if that is really a good idea. Of course the ‘progressives’ think they know how to handle it. They think that if we just let everybody in it will simply be okay.

Posted by: bugcrazy at November 4, 2005 7:52 AM
Comment #90431

Eric
Activist judges have been around for some time. They are now days just getting more bold. The congress has a constitutional duty to limit the authority of courts when they overstep and legislate from the bench. The congress needs to reign them in. A case in point. In Nebraska the people voted to define marriage as one man and one woman only. A federal judge said it was unconstitutional. The people spoke but a judge believed that they were wrong. The judge should be removed from the bench asap. The same with the 9th circuit judge(s) that rendered the fingings above. They do not represent the people nor the constitution. You are very correct in your assessment of a “living constitution”. The left has a hard time legislating they want, so they use judges and this new “living constitution” to get what they want.

Posted by: tomh at November 4, 2005 9:25 AM
Comment #90449

In other words, parents suck. They don’t know what’s best for their own children, school administrators do,

Most these idiots don’t know how to raise their own children. How in the hell are they going to try raising mine?

Last year my then 10 year-old grandson started getting in trouble at school. The school principle and his teacher called his Momma in for a confrence. They told her that the boy had emotional problems and to take him home until he was put on Prozec.
When his Daddy got home my daughter told him about the problem and what the school had told her.
Well, his Daddy knew the answer to that problem (and it wasn’t Prozec). He grabbed hold of my grandson and lit his little butt up for him.
The boy hasn’t been in trouble in school sense, and his teacher is convinced that Prozec is the reason.
Now, who knew what was best for the boy? The School? Or His Parents?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 4, 2005 10:15 AM
Comment #90452

I see… So because the court rules that “parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students”, it means the courts are saying “parents suck”.
So you agree with the plaintiffs that by the school performing a survey to learn about “psychological barriers to learning”, which included sexually based questions, was a “violation of the (parents) privacy”?
I thought you rightists didn’t believe in a right to privacy? Besides, the court ruled the parents did not have an exclusive right as long as the child was enrolled in the public schools. Not NO right.

And for jo and bugcrazy: you’re saying that socially progressive states, such as California and Massachusetts, have awful schools that exclude parental input and create stupid immoral liberal children? That must be why Massachusetts is next to last in illiteracy and number 48 in poverty? Not to mention last in divorce. Obviously, we’re really screwing up in teaching our children and leading our lives.

The “right” really worries way too much about sex. The only thing I can think of is living with the hypocracy of the right must make people crazy.

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 10:25 AM
Comment #90454

Ron,

What state do you live in?

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 10:27 AM
Comment #90468

Why is it that the schools feel they need to take these issues on? They can’t send info home to the parents suggesting issues to discuss with their own children?

‘Socially progressive’ is ‘socially destructive’ to some.
Teaching young children to put rubbers on cukes is supposed to do what? Prevent VD and possibly encourage sexual relations with anyone one wants without a committment to a relationship.
Teaching abstinence until marriage is not the answer either, but it is a good choice- though unlikely.
Why is it that people can’t be taught both?

Now the medical community has discovered a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Instead of just giving it to girls, like the measles vaccine, people worry that it will cause girls to have more sex.
If your young daughter gets the vaccine - all she needs to know it is to keep her from getting sick like the other vaccines.

The Gay marriage issue should not be answered in the courts. IF the majority of Americans make up their minds that gay marriage is not that big of a deal it will happen. Don’t force it. It just makes it harder and makes people more defensive.

Telling students that creationism is an alternative to Darwinism, that the majority in America believe, is not the same as establishing a religion. It is simply talking about things children already know BUT when they go to school they have to pretend doesn’t exist.

There is a ‘middle ground’ in most every issue. The problem is that it is not usually brought up in a discussion because it ‘don’t make good news’ if people agree on anything.
Our media encourages the disagreements in this country and we just keep falling for it. It’s like high school.
Right now CA and Mass are not looked at by most as ‘role models’. They are looked at more like a cancer. It really doesn’t matter how their schools rate at this point.

Posted by: bugcrazy at November 4, 2005 11:37 AM
Comment #90469

Tom,

In Nebraska the people voted to define marriage as one man and one woman only. A federal judge said it was unconstitutional.

i do not know what argument he used to support his ruling, but i agree with the judge that it was an unconstitutional law. Marriage is a function of the Church and the state has no place licensing religious leaders or regulating religious functions. i do not care if it is a Baptist, Episcopalian or Muslim marriage, our government has no right sticking its nose into Church business and prescribing which churches it sanctions.

Nor should any church be an agent of the government in recording and filing so-called ‘marriage certificates’. It is appalling that our governments allow people to enter into these contracts without any evidence that they are aware of what legal rights and responsibilities they contain. Government should stick to partnerships, and if they want civil unions, fine.. but calling them marriage is both unconstitutional and heretical.


Dave,

And for jo and bugcrazy: you’re saying […]
Perhaps you should refrain from putting words in other peoples’ mouths until such time as your psychic mind reading skills are better remediated.

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 11:41 AM
Comment #90471

tom,

Right now CA and Mass are not looked at by most as ‘role models’. They are looked at more like a cancer. It really doesn’t matter how their schools rate at this point.
It is easy to do well on a test you get to make.

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 11:47 AM
Comment #90474

Mass is last in divorce because???

Posted by: bugcrazy at November 4, 2005 11:59 AM
Comment #90475

Dave,


And for jo and bugcrazy: you’re saying […]
Perhaps you should refrain from putting words in other peoples’ mouths until such time as your psychic mind reading skills are better remediated.


Posted by jo at November 4, 2005 11:41 AM
===========================================
These are your quotes:
“you will rather go hungry and homeless than abandon your children to public schools.”
Posted by jo at November 4, 2005 05:55 AM
So, home school.

“if ‘they’ get it their way, we will continue to see the destruction of our society. A little at a time our children are being ‘programmed’.
Posted by bugcrazy at November 4, 2005 07:52 AM
Vs. programmed to believe crap science like ID and the Bush43 is “the greatest President ever”

“In other words, parents suck. “
Posted by Ron Brown at November 4, 2005 10:15 AM
Sorry, too empty to respond to

And I should interpret this to mean you believe the opposite of: “awful schools that exclude parental input and create stupid immoral liberal children” that I posted? Meaning we have “good schools that include parental input and create intelligent moral conservative children”? Well, everything but ‘conservative’ is true. despite that comment about cancer and controlling the test. Whatever the hell that means and wherever you got that crap. But, you can look at it however you want in the end my state is in the best three in educated, wealthy, and not-divorced. Sure sounds like we rigged the test, eh?

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 12:01 PM
Comment #90476

Dave,

By the general definitions, i am a bleeding heart liberal of the Ghandi, Mandella ilk. Trouble is i am also a Christian and in America, the liberals, especially the DNC, have taken a pro-humanist, anti-christian stance rather than a truly tolerant, constitutional stance so i advocate and vote third party.

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 12:08 PM
Comment #90481

tomh,

You said

In Nebraska the people voted to define marriage as one man and one woman only. A federal judge said it was unconstitutional.
In other words, damn the constitution, do what’s popular, eh? So if the people of Wyoming (or any othe state) approved a measure that outlawed the practice of Islam, would that be constitutional? How about if the people of Wisconsin (or any other state) overwhelmingly decided that the only people who allowed to cast votes from then on were property-owning white males over 40? Would that be constitutional? What if the people of Washington State (or any other state) decided that it was illegal to mention the word “abortion”, would that make it constitutional? What if the people of Utah (or any other state) overwhelmingly voted to make the LDS church the official religion of that state, would that be OK? What if the people of the state of Hawaii overwhelmingly voted to confiscate all waterfront property and turn it over to the State for a park, would that be constitutional?

The point is that just because a few, some, most, or ALL of the people want something, doesn’t make it constitutional. The constitution applies to everyone, tomh. Even if you don’t like it.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 4, 2005 12:38 PM
Comment #90483

Elliott,

Hyprocricy is ugly whoever wears it. If it is unconstitutional for right wing fundamnetalists to define marriage as a man and a woman, so is it unconstitutional for left wing fundies to define it as inclusive of gays. Tolerance demands the government stay out of religion/ideologies and stick to governing CIVIL liberties.

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 12:43 PM
Comment #90485

Hypothetically, Congress passes Bill ABC, the Opt Out of Public Education bill, and the President signs it into law. Each semester, the parents of Bill ABC students recieve tax dollars for a private school or home schooling. Alternatively, parents can opt out of paying property taxes and use that money for school.

There should be no restriction on where parents send their kids. Any objection of this on the grounds of unconstitutionality would be a weak argument. The government provides money to parents and the parents choose the school. Separation of church and state does not apply.

If enough parents choose this route, we can spend less on public education, and use that money for K-12 scholarships.

Eric,

How would you suggest we solve such problems as parental abuse (including sexual), STDs among youth, pregnancies among young girls, and all the rest?

I’ll admit however, that school administrators go too far in many cases. Recommending drugs for behavioral problems is not in their job description. Nor is suspending children because of these zero tolerance rules for “weapons” (a water gun for instance).

Posted by: Joseph at November 4, 2005 12:51 PM
Comment #90496

Joseph—-What are you going to say when the next kid brings in a real gun? Kids need to learn structure and obey the rules set for them. Didn’t you learn anything from 9/11? Something as small as a box cutter was enough to bring down a 747. Zero tolerance means “do it or else”. Schools have enough problems without worrying about a 10-year old with a water gun that looks real!

We should be worrying about the parents that allowed that 10-year old to bring a gun (water or otherwise) to school.

What our children learn in school should not be determined by the church…It is the duty of every parent to fill in those blanks if they wish. If more parents were involved in what they’re kids were in and out of school, the fewer problems there would be.

Posted by: GOPer at November 4, 2005 1:21 PM
Comment #90497

Gotta love the Liberal school system…

I went to my Kindergarteners Halloween party last Monday and was completely appauled by one of the teachers choice of costume.
First let me explain that a lot of my area schools have been trying to do away with costumes because of the “scare” factor.
So here I am enjoying the costume parade when the 3rd grade (I believe she’s 3rd maybe 4th)teacher waltzes by in a George Bush mask and a T-shirt that says “I am evil”!!!!!!!!! VERY UNPROFESSIONAL!!!!!! I could give a jack-rip less what she thinks, but it is not appropriate in a PUBLIC school system.
LIBERALS man……this is this, and that is that, you’re a racist, you’re intolerant, let’s teach everyone that America sucks…..and I will do just about anything I want, because it is my right!!!
Just goes to show that this here elitist republican has a lot more respect for others by knowing that a costume of John Kerry/Clinton with a bullethole in the head…..is not acceptable in a public school!!!
Now, tell me again that public schools are not trying to influence our children with their own personal beliefs……I love fairy tales!!

Posted by: Traci at November 4, 2005 1:29 PM
Comment #90498

Traci — I agree. The same goes for celebrities giving their political views. Concerts are not the place to hear someone speak on a political issue. I didn’t pay $50 a ticket to hear you talk about your views. Shut up and sing. That’s why I no longer attend any concert where the singer or group has a visible political agenda, such as Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen, etc.

The teacher you mentioned should be fired.

Posted by: GOPer at November 4, 2005 1:37 PM
Comment #90502

George,

i do not have a problem with “filling in the blanks”.. it is the required hypocricy i abhor. i do not think it is good to subject a child to, “This is the truth,; but this is what you have to say on the test because the schools require you conform to humanist beliefs.”

These humanist beliefs are as much a religion as evangelical fundamentalist beliefs. If it is wrong for evangelicals to force your child to learn…
that human beings are different from other animals or…
that there might possibly be something superior to the pinnacle of the evolved progressive human being or that human sexuality is something beyond specie propogation and entertainment;
then it is just as wrong for humanists to to force their beliefs that…
humans are nothing more than the epitomy of evolved matter…
that dropped into the universe from nowhere or…
that a the human life cycle does not include zygotes or embryos and…
any person not meeting humanist quality control requirments are no longer human and may be disposed of or supported at the whim of whomever
etc

Humanism is anti-thetical to christianity and the teaching of humanist principles in public scools infringes on the religious rights of Christians and Muslims and perhaps other religions. Federal support of public schools today is in fact establishing humanism as the official religion of America.

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 1:52 PM
Comment #90514

jo

You can wrap yourself up in the mantle of passive resistance (Ghandi) or the persecuted minority (Mandella) and claim yourself liberal; but, the reality is ‘none of the above’. As a christian you are not persecuted, the money you pay to your televangelists or Dobsons or other TV whores do not make you a passive resister.
This is a secular nation. You are promoting the christaliban agenda of perverting our justice system and the constitution to justify the new crusades. Stop lying to yourself and everyone else. If you want to live in a theocratic nation move to the vatican or Iran.

BTW, Traci, Liberal is not a curse word, no matter how much that other loser president Ronnie wanted to make it so. You can try to deride it with foolish stories but that only shows the desperation of the right.

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 2:25 PM
Comment #90528

Ron,

What state do you live in?

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 10:27 AM


Georgia

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 4, 2005 2:55 PM
Comment #90532

Dave,

i am not wrapping myelf in anything, that is the label the politcal compass sites give me.

i do not claim to be a passive resister, the most i do in way of protest is irritate family and friends and Dems and Republicans in general online.

i do not recall ever claiming to have been persecuted. i have never given to a televangelist. i HAVE volunteered in public schools parks etc and do tithe to my church.

If you read my previous postings you will not that i am AGAINST a gay marriage amendment.

Trouble is humanists cannot fathom secularism or objectivity is possible outside their personal humanist beliefs.

“Progressive Humanists” are as radical and fundamentalist as right wing evangelicals.

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 3:02 PM
Comment #90543

JO:
By the general definitions, i am a bleeding heart liberal of the Ghandi, Mandella ilk. …
Posted by jo at November 4, 2005 12:08 PM
=================================================
My appologies for misunderstanding your post.
What do you consider a “humanist”?

RON:
I’m curious. geogia is not a liberal state. Why are you refering to the schools as liberal? And, why do you think stupidity and laziness of school staff makes it a “liberal problem”? (I know you didn’t explicitly state that, but it could be reasonably inferred from the prior postings) Sounds more like a staffing problem.

Telling students that creationism is an alternative to Darwinism, that the majority in America believe, is not the same as establishing a religion. It is simply talking about things children already know BUT when they go to school they have to pretend doesn’t exist.
Posted by bugcrazy at November 4, 2005 11:37 AM
=====================================
creationism is religion. it’s not science. That’s why it is constitutionaly prohibited from public school. Many religions do not have creationism, certainly not the 7 day allegory.

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 3:34 PM
Comment #90545

Jo,

You said it’s “unconstitutional for left wing fundies to define it [marriage] as inclusive of gays”. Unfortunately, that directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the constitution, part of which says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Last time I checked, those gay people who are US citizens are entitled to the same (not more and not less) protections and privileges as anyone else. If a state recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman, it is therefore denying the equal protection of the law to gay people. The only legal ways out of this are either a constitutional amendment to exclude gay people, or for states get out of the marriage business and do what both John Kerry and Dick Cheney have suggested, recognize “civil unions.”

You also said

Humanism is anti-thetical to christianity
That’s pretty ironic, because if you change your statement to “Humanism is anti-thetical to christianity Islam”, you come close to what some fundamentalist Muslims are saying. In that way, fundamentalist religions are more alike than they are different. Thanks for proving it.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 4, 2005 3:49 PM
Comment #90554

RON:
I’m curious. geogia is not a liberal state. Why are you refering to the schools as liberal? And, why do you think stupidity and laziness of school staff makes it a “liberal problem”? (I know you didn’t explicitly state that, but it could be reasonably inferred from the prior postings) Sounds more like a staffing problem.
Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 03:34 PM

While Georgia is for the most part Conservitive, their are pockets of liberialism. Atlanta is a good example. While Suburban Atlanta is conservitive for the most part, Newt was from the 7th Congressional District which is near Atlanta.
Atlanta itself is very Liberial.
My daughter lives in Atlanta. So yes, the school system is Liberial. But I agree with you that it is a staffing problem. And that problem starts with the School Board.
Stupidity and laziness is EVERYONES problem. Specially when it involves our schools.
Just as a side, The county school system here in my home county is screwd up too. And this county is Conservitive.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 4, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #90567

Marriage is a function of the Church and the state has no place licensing religious leaders or regulating religious functions.

Then why do the states require a marriage license?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 4, 2005 5:15 PM
Comment #90568

In other words, parents suck. “
Posted by Ron Brown at November 4, 2005 10:15 AM
Sorry, too empty to respond to

Did you read Eric’s post Dave? That was a quote from it, I was respoding to it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 4, 2005 5:22 PM
Comment #90579

Jo:

Humanism is anti-thetical to christianity

You are wrong in your definition and interpretation.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Humanism is a common term used to refer to a singular philosophy, or an aspect of various different philosophies, which emphasizes the common nature of human beings, and hold to human issues solutions which are most universal. In the modern context, humanism has grown to become a broad ethical doctrine (“-ism”) which includes the whole human ethnicity, rather than being limited to local traditions affiliated with particular ethnic groups.

Modern humanism was born in European Renaissance universities, originally referred to a student or teacher of Greco-Roman literature. The first “humanists” were orators, or poets of Biblical, or philosophical ideas. Many early doctrines calling themselves “humanist”, were based on Protagoras’s famous claim that “man is the measure of all things.” This asserted that people are the ultimate determiners of value and morality— not objective or absolutist codices. Modern humanism, in contrast, generally accepts morality as being rooted in our interests, not arbitrary personal or social constructs, while denying any primary role for the supernatural.

Humanism is typically viewed as being rooted in rational (ie. “reasonable”) thought, that does not defer to local or supernatural concepts, entities, or to sacred texts, traditions or religious creeds. While it happens that many humanists are atheists or agnostics, humanism does not itself explicity deny religious spirituality, but instead rejects blind deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs.


Posted by: womanmarine at November 4, 2005 5:58 PM
Comment #90589

Dave,

I thought you rightists didn’t believe in a right to privacy? Besides, the court ruled the parents did not have an exclusive right as long as the child was enrolled in the public schools. Not NO right.

I thought you lefties did believe in the right to privacy. The court is plainly saying that once you put your kids in public school you have no rights to say don’t ask my kids these questions.

What it really is, is that the whole liberal agenda comes down to creating a better society whether we like it or not. The left just knows what’s good for us. They should be in charge of any decision they think it is necessary for them to be in charge of. Right?

Posted by: esimonson at November 4, 2005 6:51 PM
Comment #90592

Esimonson:

creating a better society whether we like it or not

Okay, you don’t want a better society? Why not?

Posted by: womanmarine at November 4, 2005 7:00 PM
Comment #90593

Joseph,

How would you suggest we solve such problems as parental abuse (including sexual), STDs among youth, pregnancies among young girls, and all the rest?

How do we solve any other criminal behaviour in society? Certainly not by going door to door and searching everyone’s home, or stopping all motorists to see if they have committed a crime, yet this is what we get in the public school because it is antithetical to democracy.

Why does the ACLU flip out when everyone’s bag is searched before getting on a subway in NY? But it’s ok to ask first graders these kinds of questions because there ‘might’ be, ‘possibly’, ‘no we don’t know of any case in particular’, but someone could be abused? Do you need a warrant for that or what?

If the rationale really is stopping child abuse, as the ‘public good’ served thus, what other application of this technique can we then graduate to?

Posted by: esimonson at November 4, 2005 7:01 PM
Comment #90598

womanmarine,

Okay, you don’t want a better society? Why not?

I’m glad you asked.

It’s not that I don’t want a better society, in general terms. It’s that I may not want your version of what a better society is imposed upon me. I recognize also that you wouldn’t want my version of what a better society is imposed on you. Public control is limiting freedom, not expanding it.

But the difference between what I believe and what so many liberals believe is that they have a moral right to create a better society over my objections, to impose a more equal ‘social justice’, by taking away my individual rights, my right to be different, my right to go my own way, and make all of us tread the same path.

This case is a perfect example. Public school is funded by tax dollars from property owners, ostensibly so that the poor can get an education, because otherwise only rich people would educate their kids. (Which I don’t believe.) Yet when the poor send their kids to school should they lose their parental rights to protect them from whatever indoctrination those who are running the school see fit to foist upon them? Why is that the only choice? BY law you must send your child to school, by law if you do, this judge is telling you you have lost some of your rights.

But by what standard do they seek to impose this better society?

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficient. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evilminded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. L. Brandeis
Posted by: esimonson at November 4, 2005 7:22 PM
Comment #90602

Esimonson:

You could home school. While I think there are some problems with some public schools, there is no way each school, each teacher, etc. could cater to the preferences of each set of parents as to how or what to teach their child. It is a system that requires standards.

I am in favor of any school system who does what they can to root out child abuse.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 4, 2005 7:41 PM
Comment #90607

Eric:
“In other words, parents suck. They don’t know what’s best for their own children, school administrators do, and if school administrators want to ask your child sexual questions then they can do as they damn well please.”

The judges did not say anything of the sort. They said that the school can run a survey without getting permission from parents. The school does a lot of things without asking permission. The assumption is that what they do is for the good of the child.

If you, as a parent, do not think so, you have a right to take your child to another school or to homeschool. You do not have the right to dictate to the school how it should be run.

This is not activism on the judges’ part. If the Court had ruled that the school must follow what the complaining parents asked for, this would be judicial activism.

The 9th Circuit interpeted the law. You are looking for an activist judge.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 4, 2005 7:45 PM
Comment #90608

Ron,

yes I read the post. I was responding to your post, specifically. Of course, it might only be an assumption that since you used the quote, you really didn’t agree with it.
The reason I used it is that, to me there is absolutely no connection between the courts decision that parents did not have an absolute, “exclusive”, right to control the information a school could provide to their children who were enrolled in a public school to ‘parents suck’. No one anywhere in that case said parents were unable to raise their children. No one anywhere in that case said children did not have the right to raise their children as they saw fit. What they did say was that if you placed your child in the public schools then you lost some control over what was being taught to your children.

As for those posters talking “child abuse.” The case was not asking “have you been abused.” They were being asked if thinking about sex interfered with their education.

As I said before, the right is way too uptight about sex. They impeached one president for adultery yet love another who lied about going to war and is protecting a senior staff meeting who intentionally exposed an undercover agent during a time of war. Messed up priorities, for sure….

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 7:58 PM
Comment #90624

Dave
No one anywhere in that case said children did not have the right to raise their children as they saw fit.

I’m sure this was a typo on your part. If not then the court ruling is way off.


What they did say was that if you placed your child in the public schools then you lost some control over what was being taught to your children.

THE HELL I DO! The Schools belong to the taxpayers, NOT THE COURTS, This means that the taxpayers, many of who are parents of school age kids, get the say in what’s taught in the schools.
Of course the liberials like that ruling because they can kick the parents out of the schools. When parents get involved in their childrens education most of the time they DON”T LIKE what they see and start raising hell about it. And that’s not what Liberials want. They want to be able to brainwash your kids to march in lock step with the socialism that they’re teaching.
Dispite what Liberials say most people are not liberial. They aren’t all that Conservitive either. But they sure as hell don’t like what’s going on in public schools.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 4, 2005 9:09 PM
Comment #90637

Ron,

The court did not decide what was taught in that school. BTW, my kids school district, which is very liberal, has a tremendous amount of parent involvement. We are one of the top 10 school districts in the state as measured by MCAS, college rates, etc… Our school administrators look at the relationship as a partnership and disagreements are handled, by and large, courtiously and professionally. There are inumberable parent commitees, a vibrent PTA, and so on. We have three scheduled conferences yearly with their teachers. Since my son is behind in reading (at 65% of the Iowa test national level where it is expected he should be in the 90%’s based on other testing and math scores) we have additional monthly meetings. I like what’s going on in my schools. We are a very wealthy community and are not socialists but are mostly generous. We believe in a republic but not a plutocracy.

Liberals Love Involvement and consensus and growth. It seems to me it’s the Conservatives love Dogma and can’t handle diversity of opinions, or religions, …

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2005 10:08 PM
Comment #90640

Paul,

The assumption is that what they do is for the good of the child.

The assumption is that George Bush is doing what is good for the country.

If you, as a parent, do not think so, you have a right to take your child to another school or to homeschool. You do not have the right to dictate to the school how it should be run.

So much for democracy, eh? I don’t know about where you live but in california the powers that be have decided that they decide which public school you can go to according to where you live. So the only way you can choose to go to another school is to move, or pay for private school. But then I thought education was a right? Do the poor have such rights?

Nothing like a little education monopoly making obscene profits off of our children and having all that power and control to boot.

Posted by: esimonson at November 4, 2005 10:55 PM
Comment #90647

Dave,
“creationism is religion. it’s not science. That’s why it is constitutionaly prohibited from public school. Many religions do not have creationism, certainly not the 7 day allegory.

Posted by Dave at November 4, 2005 03:34 PM”

Creationism by the very term is a science. One has to believe that an individual - God - must be some sort of scientist to have created our world.
He must have taken courses in science to create an experiment such as our Milkyway or Universe.
To believe in Darwin’s theory is to accept that everything happened ‘by chance’ and then evolved over time.
The differnece is a plan or happenstance.
Either way we are talking theory. No one has proof one way or the other.
The reason dinosaurs are extinct is still a theory.
The ‘missing link’ is yet to be found.
Simply saying that people theorize that God created our world is not establishing a religion.

We have many who believe aliens, or intelligent life, created us. Should that be prohibited from discussion in school?

I thought the point of our society was freedom. The idea we all live by. The freedoms that we enjoy circle around free thought.
If our children are not exposed to all ideas … how can we expect them to have thoughts of their own?
It seems to me that the ‘far left’ and the ‘far right’ are trying to prevent free thought.



Posted by: bugcrazy at November 5, 2005 1:08 AM
Comment #90649

‘Simply saying that people theorize that God created our world is not establishing a religion.’

Sorry. That makes no sense but I assume you got the meaning.

Saying that people believe God created our world is not establishing a religion.

Why don’t ‘God haters’ or ‘non-believers’ understand that?

Just so you know … I do not belong to or attend a church on a regular basis.
I was raised to believe that ‘GOD’ is in my heart and the basics such as the ‘Ten Commandments’ are something that we all should live by.
It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with humanity.
I don’t have to go to church or fill the collection plate with a share of my hard earned money to be a good person.
I don’t have anything against religion BUT I do have a problem with those who want to remove it from our society.


Posted by: bugcrazy at November 5, 2005 1:21 AM
Comment #90653

Eric,

I’m so tired of you blaming everything on liberals. Why don’t you take responsibility for your own actions for once. It’s not the liberals fault that you have the intelligence of a 1850’s bigot. Your a dying breed, and you do a sorry job defining what conservativism is. Your also trash, and unfortunately will always be trash. I understand that were suppose to critique the message and not the messenger but all you do is attack people and not their messege. So I find it fitting to say your a subhuman piece of SHIT!!!

Posted by: ericsucksballs at November 5, 2005 2:59 AM
Comment #90665

Wow….that last comment stings of someone that cannot debate maturely!!!

Posted by: Traci at November 5, 2005 9:26 AM
Comment #90669

bugcrazy

You said

Creationism by the very term is a science. One has to believe that an individual - God - must be some sort of scientist to have created our world.
He must have taken courses in science to create an experiment such as our Milkyway or Universe.
What? You’re saying that someone taught science to God? Who would that be?

Creationism and its stepchild “Intelligent Design” are nothing more than yet another FREC (Fundamental Rightwing Extreme Christian) attempt to cram their religious dogma down everyone else’s throat. Study after study shows that American schoolchildren are falling behind other countries in learning science, and the FRECs response? Teach our kids that religious dogma is science. Like that’ll help them catch up.

I’m all for teaching religious dogma in public schools. Just as soon as they start teaching evolution in church.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 5, 2005 10:40 AM
Comment #90670

Eric-
I love how you Conservatives always assume that activist judges are liberal. Let’s examine a few activist court rulings that were made by the Conservative block. The one that most sticks out in my mind is Bush v. Gore (2000). This was a politically motivated decision that goes against every fiber of what a Conservative is supposed to be. They essentially did exactly what you are complaining about in your blog, they said that the federal government knows best. The state of Florida is not able to conduct it’s own elections. Beyond that the so called Conservative court made a recent ruling outlawing the death penalty for minors. That isn’t an activist ruling????

My point is that you should be careful to point fingers about judicial activism when your own side practices it all of the time. The people who use this political “buzz” word are only discredtied every time they use it.

As for the decision in schools…I work in a school and I can honestly tell you that some students need help when it comes to things like sex. It would not be safe to assume that everyone in this country has had a set of parents that take the time to educate their children about things like drug use and sexual activity. You make it sound in your commentary that the school administrators are going to hunt down every kid and make sure they have “the talk”. This decision only tries to protect the students and society from unsafe sex.

For years the Conservatives have claimed to wave the banner for family values. This is the biggest political farce in the history of American politics. If your party was so concerned about family values then why haven’t we made any strides as a moral society over the last ten years? I know that prime-time television has only been morally degredated over the last ten years, so where are the Conservatives? Oh, that’s right they are not going to tell the corporate executives to take something off of the air that is making them so much money. Bottom line is that the Republicans have talked about making this place a better place to raise a family and haven’t done anything to accomplish this. Instead they choose profit margins and special interest to control their every action. So much for family values….

Posted by: Lee at November 5, 2005 11:08 AM
Comment #90690
It’s not the liberals fault that you have the intelligence of a 1850’s bigot. Your a dying breed, and you do a sorry job defining what conservativism is. Your also trash, and unfortunately will always be trash. I understand that were suppose to critique the message and not the messenger but all you do is attack people and not their messege. So I find it fitting to say your a subhuman piece of SHIT!!!

Hey, I don’t care who ya are…dat right dar’s FUNNY!

Posted by: LouieDaMan at November 5, 2005 1:33 PM
Comment #90867

you know, it’s been a while since i’ve posted mostly cause my blood pressure has gone up considerable since joining this blog…

as a humanist, which jo seems to be eerily fixated on…and as a liberal, which clerly fills erics every thought

i really don’t give a shit what you do. i don’t care what you think, or say or do.

i don’t care how you raise your kids, i don’t care who you hate or love.

i don’t care who you sleep with, what books you read, which bluecollar tv guy you find the funniest…

i just don’t care.

in turn, i request the same from you. i don’t want you to care how i raise my kids, or care about what i read, or who i sleep with.

i don’t want you to care about how i spend my money or how i vote. i don’t want you to care that i think creationism is ridiculous, or that religion is silly. moreso, i don’t want you to impose your views on my kids.

we each have the right to raise our kids the way we want.

see this is the cool part….i disagree with almost everything eric has ever said. but i respect his freedom to say it.

i am a liberal. i hate the current administration. i think the iraq war was pushed on false pretenses. but it’s just what i think.

and that is my right. i really don’t care if you agree with me. and if you are so set in your ways that you are just gonna yell and scream at me, well then i really don’t think i’m gonna change your mind anyway.

eric is right about one thing(and i say that through i tightly clenched jaw). the current democratic party is in need of an overhaul.

but please make the distinction…i do not think they are liberal.

liberal to me means letting everyone live and let live. i am not my brother’s keeper. i tend to the lives of myself and my family.

beyond that, i have no right to tell anyone else how to live.

it seems funny to me that eric spends alot of time telling us how the liberals want to control peoples thoughts and that if you have a different opinion you are ousted….seems to me alot of conservatives could be accused of the very same thing.

ok…enough…blood pressure has gone way to high again….

Posted by: views at November 7, 2005 5:41 AM
Comment #91065

Views
You defined the word liberal. I disagree with your definition, but that is your definition and you must live within it. If I defined manure as a gourmet dinner to be served with candle light then that would be my definition and I would expect you to disagree with me, but you would know better where I’m coming from. More people should define the words that fan the flames, then more people would understand where the other person is coming from.

Posted by: tomh at November 8, 2005 12:47 AM
Post a comment