Court decides case using Bible - in Alabama

[donsu]

http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1122667713263100.xml&storylist=alabamanews


Court issues history-making decision in child custody case


A divided Alabama Supreme Court decided a child custody dispute Friday with a history-making decision citing legal precedent, the Bible, and parents' relationship with God.

A majority of the justices agreed the child should be raised by the maternal grandparents, but to reach that conclusion, the nine justices issued seven opinions in the case. That allowed each justice to offer an explanation of why the case ended like it did.

Justice Tom Parker, who wrote a dissenting opinion, noted that in the more than 7,100 cases in the Supreme Court's database, "this is the first case in which Justices of the Court have issued seven separate opinions."

-snip-

(in the snip are quotes from the bible that was used in the judges decisions)
------------------------------


see what happens when the religiously insane virus gets loose

[progressoid]

1. Well Yippee!

Looks like we have some more candidates for the Supreme Court! They have all of the necessary requirements:

Accept the Lord as your personal savior? Check!
Read the bible? Check!
Willing to use the bible as a legal reference? Check!


OK, you're in!

:sarcasm:

[NativeTexan]

2. Well at least .....

they didn't follow thru with a King Solomon type of decision..

[bigendian]

3. How about the Prodigal Son?

Which is better, a person who has always "followed the rules" or one that has broken them only to see the error of their ways?
The father has been attempting to get it together and some of these judges cannot accept that people change.
What does a person have to do to atone for past mistakes? Nothing is good enough for the religious extremist.
The stiff-necked Christian is the faiths worst enemy.

[Igel]

11. I'm not sure I agree with your reading.

One judge cited Psalms, saying, "Sure, but ..." before rejecting the idea. I suspect that this is a jab at a dissenter's opinion before arguing from more usual kinds of premises.

Then there's Parker:

' ... Parker quoted from Romans 13:1-2, which says "there is no authority except from God." Parker wrote that God, not the state, has given parents the rights and responsibilities to raise their children.

He said "courts should interfere as little as possible with parental decision-making, instead deferring to parental authority whenever it has not been fundamentally compromised by substantial neglect, wrongdoing or criminal act." '

Note that this is arguing *for* giving the father custody: it was a dissent from the judgment that the grandparents should have custody.

Of course, it has nothing to do with the father's trying to pull his life together.

[bigendian]

13. It seems to me that the father is now trying to assert his rights...

and responsibilities after battling drug addiction.

Stewart writes,"Rights must be claimed and responsibilities assumed or they may be forfeited."

When does it become too late to do that?
Perhaps after your last breath.

[AirAmFan]

14. Alternate link to the story, no need to register, is at URL

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050729/APN/507291065&template=variable .

Part of the disagreement in this thread arises from the fact that few people actually have read the story, because clicking on the link in the OP brings up a registration page, not the story.

This new link, which uses exactly the same phrases as those in the OP, strongly supports your interpretation, IMHO. What seems to make this 5-4 decision most significant is that a child's only living parent--the father--was declared unfit by a lower court on inadequate grounds, even though the child's grandparents did not even accuse him of being unfit.

I haven't seen the seven opinions, but it appears that quoting from the Bible was incidental to one of the DISSENTING opinions supporting the father's parenting rights, even though he once was a druggie and met the child's mother in rehab. IMHO, this opinion is going to damage the child irretrievably (where is my Dad?) and likely ignite another generational cycle of drug abuse.

[Kerrytravelers]

4. Here we go.

We are going to be the laughing stock of the globe... ok, we kinda already are.

You would think that someone would have brushed up a bit on their knowledge of world history to see what blending religion and the state have done.

But no, now we have to relive history... :eyes:

[Viking12]

6. ..and they even did it without Roy Moore

just sayin' ... :shrug:

[Viking12]

5. F'd Up!

The father is unfit becuase he doesn't know the child's clothes size??? :wtf: Take my kids away I guess....

[CatholicEdHead]

7. Looks like a pretty easy appeal with this

given what was cited in the case.

[Kerrytravelers]

8. Depends upon who gets the case on appeal.

The 9th circuit would strike it down... but others... remember who * has placed on the bench lately. owens... brown... pickering... :scared:

[ticapnews]

9. Wouldn't The Bible represent a "foreign" organization...

Last I knew, the Bible wasn't an American document. Don't conservatives only want laws determined by American precedent, and not allow "foreign" influence to taint our system of justice?

Keep America pure! Reject the influence of Rome and Jerusalem! :P

[geek tragedy]

10. I love to bash theocrats, but the religion angle is overrated here.

<snip>
Five justices concurred with the lower court's decision, with Justice Lyn Stewart noting that the father "had never spent 24 hours alone with his son."

Citing Psalms 127:3-5, she wrote that children are a gift from God, but they come with responsibilities.

"Rights must be claimed and responsibilities assumed or they may be forfeited," she wrote.
<snip>

This seems more like citing Shakespeare or Faulkner in support of a general proposition than determining law by looking to scripture.

[roguevalley]

12. excellent grounds for appeal

[wli]

15. doubtless Federalist Society hacks; theofascism is taking over