9th Circuit Court decides the State

[jimshiz]

Parents here, please tell me, any of you, who would be OK with this survey being given to your child in the first grade?

 

I'm just curious to know if you are really OK with this or you are just being confrontational because if you disagree with the 9th circuit you are somehow on the same "side" as people, many of whom, agree with conservative ideas.

[jimshiz]

These are appropriate topics for first graders?

 

The sexual references are:

8. Touching my private parts too much

17. Thinking about having sex

22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts

23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to

26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

34. Not trusting people because they might want sex

40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

44. Having sex feelings in my body

47. Can’t stop thinking about sex

54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

 

To be asked by non-parental-units?

[jimshiz]

What does the 'No Child Left Behind' "act" have to do with the 9th circuit decision that basically said the "state" trumps the parents' authority on what their kids will be taught?

505357[/snapback]

 

The answer is "NOTHING" !!!

 

Except for those of you who would rather parse the context of whether parents rights were being trumped by the "state" or by the "school board".

[Mickey]

Mickey, what part of that consent form indicated in any way whatsoever that 1st graders were going to receive a sexuality survey?  I certainly wouldn't have assumed that because the form stated "answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable" that the 1st graders (heck, the 3rd or 5th graders either) would be asked questions of a rather "adult" sexual nature.  Would you have interpreted the consent form that way?

 

I also take extreme exception to the Court's ruling stating "we also hold that the 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."  I am surprised that you do not have an issue with this.  As CTM mentioned, that does seem to render the whole idea of parental consent forms as being superfluous, as it does appear that parents cannot grant nor withhold consent.

 

The other thing I thought was interesting in this whole matter is that the lady who administered these questionaires was a "volunteer".  The friggin' school board is letting random people come in and ask some really inappropriate questions, but since it was "rationally relagated to a state purpose" I guess that it is ok.   

 

I will be shocked if any members of that imbecilic school board get reelected.  I am not shocked that the 9th Court thinks this is ok.  It actually seems par for the course.

505661[/snapback]

It wasn't a "sexuality survey" and it is disingenuous to call it such.

 

The language you are screaming at me above doesn't at all effect consent. Having the right to pull your kid from school the day they are teaching about slavery is not the same as insisting that the school not be permitted to teach about slavery at all because it offends you. Certainly you can pull your kid, you just can't tell the school what to teach and what not to based on a constitutional fundamental right. You can do all sorts of things to control you schools curriculum from being on the school board to the PTA. This isn't about that, its about having an actionable, fundamental right to control the curriculum via a federal case.

 

I am sure you understand that the right to raise your kid is still yours, you can send him to school or not if they are doing something that day that concerns you. You just can't tell them that they have to call the whole lesson off for the whole school because you think it is a bad lesson.

 

Try and imagine how things would work if what you suggest was permitted, if the school needed a fully informed consent from every parent on every lesson before it could be taught. The school here wasn't trying to force a sexuality survey on ususpecting kids as part of some sick joke they had a hankering to play. This psychologist came up to them and asked for permission to do this research that could benefit kids who have trouble learning due to emotional and psychiatric reasons. Among the several tests and many, many questions, were a few about sex. It got by them. They weren't out to idoctrinate kids into a porn ring. They screwed up, it happens. Lets not let one goofy idea at one lousy school district about an obscure research project give rise to a brand new fundamental constitutional right that makes it impossible to play duck-duck-goose during recess whithout each child making a written waiver in the presence of a court appointed attorney.

[erynthered]

Mickey.

 

Just a yes or no here if you please...

 

 

Would you have wanted your little girls taking that test, survey, or what ever you call it?

 

Just a yes or no, thanks.

[Wacka]

He's a lawyer. Answering yes or no is impossible for him.

[Mickey]

These are appropriate topics for first graders?

 

The sexual references are:

8. Touching my private parts too much

17. Thinking about having sex

22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts

23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to

26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

34. Not trusting people because they might want sex

40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

44. Having sex feelings in my body

47. Can’t stop thinking about sex

54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

 

To be asked by non-parental-units?

505788[/snapback]

Certainly not appropriate to ask without getting parental consent first which in fact was done here. The problem is that the information sheet on the test used by the parents to make the decision wasn't very detailed, especially on these things. They didn't override parental instructions, they just did a lousy job getting consent. That is a problem easily remedied at the next PTA meeting or School Board election, it doesn't give rise to a constitutional fundamental right not recognized by any other court or judicial opinion.

 

Call your congressman.

[jimshiz]

Certainly not appropriate to ask without getting parental consent first which in fact was done here.  The problem is that the information sheet on the test used by the parents to make the decision wasn't very detailed, especially on these things.  They didn't override parental instructions, they just did a lousy job getting consent.  That is a problem easily remedied at the next PTA meeting or School Board election, it doesn't give rise to a constitutional fundamental right not recognized by any other court or judicial opinion.

 

Call your congressman.

505812[/snapback]

 

NOT !!!

[KRC]

NOT !!!

505818[/snapback]

 

I heard on the radio (have not confirmed it yet) that a list of the questions was sent to the parents. It did not include the sex questions.

[Mickey]

Mickey.

 

Just a yes or no here if you please...

Would you have wanted your little girls taking that test, survey, or what ever you call it?

 

Just a yes or no, thanks.

505805[/snapback]

No, but I also won't let my daughter play dodgeball, do I have a constitutional right to shut down dodgeball at the entire school? Court cases aren't about what is right and what is wrong, they are about what is so wrong its actionable. In the constitutional realm, that bar is as high as it can get.

 

Not everything that is right or wrong is a fudamental constitutional right giving rise to a federal case for monetary damages?

[VABills]

So it's okay that these judges, instilled by the lefties and liberals in power, have taken it upon themselves to legislate from the bench. Yet, when the "righties" want to overturn this legislation and say, a.) it isn't in the constitution, and b.) where is the checks and balances of government? it isn't okay. Yeah fair and balanced as long as the teeter totter is leaning your way.

[Mickey]

Parents here, please tell me, any of you, who would be OK with this survey being given to your child in the first grade?

 

I'm just curious to know if you are really OK with this or you are just being confrontational because if you disagree with the 9th circuit you are somehow on the same "side" as people, many of whom, agree with conservative ideas.

505785[/snapback]

Can you or can you not differentiate between what was wrong, stupid even, and what is a fundamental constitutional right that is actionable in a federal court suit for monetary damages?

 

Why are you picking on the Ninth, why not the Eighth circuit, one of their judges was on the three judge panel that decided the case. Why not the First Circuit whose leading precedent the Ninth simply followed?

 

I am making a legal argument, I am no moral philosopher. Judges and lawyers are supposed to decide things based on the law, not our individual views of morality. This was a legal case and so I am discussing its legal merits and analyzing it from a legal standpoint. If you want to have a moral discussion about what should and should not be asked of kids, see you at the PTA or the next class period of "Ethics in Education".

 

Tell me what legal precedent the Ninth violated? Tell what cases they cited that were not valid precedent? Tell me what statute was violated? Tell me why getting parental consent wasn't enough?

[jimshiz]

Can you or can you not differentiate between what was wrong, stupid even, and what is a fundamental constitutional right that is actionable in a federal court suit for monetary damages?

 

Why are you picking on the Ninth, why not the Eighth circuit, one of their judges was on the three judge panel that decided the case.  Why not the First Circuit whose leading precedent the Ninth simply followed?

 

I am making a legal argument, I am no moral philosopher.  Judges and lawyers are supposed to decide things based on the law, not our individual views of morality.  This was a legal case and so I am discussing its legal merits and analyzing it from a legal standpoint.  If you want to have a moral discussion about what should and should not be asked of kids, see you at the PTA or the next class period of "Ethics in Education". 

 

Tell me what legal precedent the Ninth violated?  Tell what cases they cited that were not valid precedent?  Tell me what statute was violated?  Tell me why getting parental consent wasn't enough?

505856[/snapback]

 

The reason this is a legal matter that might require monetary damages is because the "damage" was already done. Had the court ruled that the schools could not give the survery, what real damage would have occurred? Unfortunately, since they ruled the other way, and the survey was already given, you can't undo the "damage" that was done, so monetary damages I guess is the next best thing.

 

If they used common sense in the first place, there would have never been a need for a legal case at all, Constitutional or otherwise.

[Mickey]

So it's okay that these judges, instilled by the lefties and liberals in power, have taken it upon themselves to legislate from the bench.  Yet, when the "righties" want to overturn this legislation and say, a.) it isn't in the constitution, and b.) where is the checks and balances of government?  it isn't okay.  Yeah fair and balanced as long as the teeter totter is leaning your way. 

505855[/snapback]

I'm not the one whining all the time about judicial acitivism. The right is, just not when it doesn't suit them. This case had no precedent, nothing at all to allow it to go the other way. Roe, for example, had Griswold and other cases, Supreme Court cases, to rely on. The idea that liberals are making up laws out of whole cloth is bs. You might not agree with a number of cases and perhaps for very good, sound, legal reasons. That just means that they were wrong, not that they made things up. That is the oversimplification from party central mass produced for consumption by the thronging masses. Lots of liberals have made lousy court decisions. Lots of conservatives have as well. There is plenty to discuss, debate and disagree with withoug carting out that kind of campaign commercial pap.

 

What lefty, liberal judges (why always the stereotype?) are you talking about anyway? This was a three judge panel, one judge from the Eighth Circuit. Do you know his name, his background, who appointed him? I didn't think so but he must be a liberal lefty because he made a decision you disagree with, right? How about the Judges on the First Circuit who decided the case that the Ninth was compelled to follow, are they all liberal lefties? Who are they? How do you know they are liberal lefties? How about all those other cases from all those other circuits reaching the exact same conclusion? Are they all liberal lefties as well?

 

Stop the liberal-conservative crap and tell me why you think there is a fundamental constitutional right of each parent to decide what is taught in each lesson in a public school and that if that right is denied, they should have the right to sue for money damages in federal court rather than just give the idiot teacher a piece of their mind at the next PTA meeting?

[Mickey]

I have always had that "appreciation", it is a conservative fantasy that liberals support any other approach. Where we do differ is the role of the court when it comes to interpreting the constitution. That is a far more complex issue, not one I sense anyone here is willing to discuss beyond their respective: ACTIVIST JUDGES, LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH, THE FOUNDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!! talking points.

 

Whenever I see those phrases, I interpret them as meaning: "I don't know what I am talking about but I am mad as hell."

[OnTheRocks]

No, but I also won't let my daughter play dodgeball, do I have a constitutional right to shut down dodgeball at the entire school? 

505848[/snapback]

 

 

that is so not comparing apples with apples.

[erynthered]

that is so not comparing apples with apples.

505897[/snapback]

 

 

Do they wear condoms while playing Dodgeball? I mean you have the word Dodge and Ball, right?

[Mickey]

that is so not comparing apples with apples.

505897[/snapback]

Why?

 

Are you saying the the constitutional fundamental right to excusively control what is and is not taught at a school by each individual parent is limited to sex so other parts of the curriculum, such a physical education, is not included?

 

What are the limits of this new right? Can't I be just as offended by my daughter being taught about slavery, war or new math as you would be by the research questionaire involved in this case?

 

I know you won't believe me but I could care less if the Ninth Circuit court quit working cases to open a nudist barbecue pit. I also have no vested interest in schools letting outside researchers conduct stupid studies. There are reasons why this precedent, so abhorrent to so many here, is so long and well established. My sense is that because this had sex involved, everyone is freaking out. So I am trying to lift it out of that reactionary realm where the core issue might be discussed with something approaching rationality.

[VABills]

I have always had that "appreciation", it is a conservative fantasy that liberals support any other approach.  Where we do differ is the role of the court when it comes to interpreting the constitution.  That is a far more complex issue, not one I sense anyone here is willing to discuss beyond their respective: ACTIVIST JUDGES, LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH, THE FOUNDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!! talking points.

 

Whenever I see those phrases, I interpret them as meaning: "I don't know what I am talking about but I am mad as hell."

505896[/snapback]

Mickey, the constitution says, the law makers make laws. The president signs them or vetoes them. If someone doesn't like them, then they ask the courts to overrule the laws. That is what the constitution says. Now show me the law that says schools have a right to overrule the parents decision regarding the childs education. Yet when the lower courts rule on the parental notification in cases of abortion you have a sh-- fit, even though there are laws there. So in one case no law is passed but the courts make a totally unsupportable position. In another, the courts rule that parents don't need to be notified. Yet in the first they are making law, at least in the second they are ruling on a law and its constitutionality.

[Mickey]

Do they wear condoms while playing Dodgeball? I mean you have the word Dodge and Ball, right?

505901[/snapback]

did they wear condoms while taking filling out a 300 question psych questionaire, with their parents consent?

 

Seriously, if you want to give to parents an actionable fundamental right to exclusive control over the content of every activity, every lesson, great, I'll make a fortune but we will need lots and lots and lots more courthouses. Oh, and schools will need more insurance. Hmmm, I'll also need to learn how to sail my new yacht. If, as part of that you want to throw out having obtained parental consent, as was done here, as a complete defense for the districts, I'll need to figure out which Lear Jet suits my tastses.