In Session: Sidebar  « Back to Blog Main
May 30, 2008
Posted: 01:20 PM ET

NEW YORK — The state of Texas is nothing if not law and order. So there must be a reason two appellate courts there have sided with polygamist mothers fighting for the return of their children. And that reason is simple: it’s the right thing to do. Not as a matter of sympathy, or morality, or decency, but as a matter of constitutional law.

True, the Texas Supreme Court did not say yesterday that there’s no wrongdoing at the ranch, where authorities say sexual abuse of young girls is routine. Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged the state’s interest in protecting children from harm. But state agents can’t storm home, polygamist or otherwise, and remove children without a showing of abuse. Suspicions are not enough.

I know it’s difficult to understand if you care about children or the mothers. But those of us who choose to become lawyers, well, these are easy cases, because these are the very people our Constitution seeks to protect — the least popular among us — lest they be subject to the tyranny of the majority. And that is the Last Word.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

Filed under: Jami Floyd • Last Word


Share this on:
Thomas J. Futch   May 30th, 2008 4:20 pm ET

I completely agree. If murderers and so forth are allowed to have things such as cable television, free medical, free dental, exercise equipment and free education because the law says so, then the law should also work to the advantage of those who have not been proven guilty.

Betty Jo   May 31st, 2008 12:59 pm ET

I have no problem with the children being with their BIRTH parents but not given back to the “compound”. I want DNA to prove who is the parent and at what age conception occurred. What about the “tyranny of the majority” in the compound?

Skeptic   May 31st, 2008 10:53 pm ET

Bravo! Jami Floyd. Well said.
I wish judge Barbara Walthers understood this, because she clearly didn’t. Two higher courts have already ordered her to vacate her earlier wrong, yet she refused to let the family reunited when she left for home. She has no business to be a judge. If a judge cannot obey higher court’s orders, who will obey hers?

cousin bubba   June 1st, 2008 1:22 pm ET

There is something really Stupid happening here or am i merely being dense? Were all these children taken from their Parents for no good Reason?
Some body has got to Pay…
They always said if America were to fall it would be from the Inside.
Chip away at the Stone

Linda Johnson   June 1st, 2008 4:51 pm ET

I agree completely that it was wrong for those sweet children to be abruptly taken from their mothers and am hopeful that they will be reunited asap. But, it’s my understanding that if Child Protective Services responds to a complaint and begins an investigation, that it has the undisputed right to remove any child from the home at any time that they think the child is in danger of neglect or abuse. They don’t have to wait for proof. If that is, indeed, the way this agency operates, then they have too much authority to act on their own, and that needs to be amended.

Beth   June 1st, 2008 6:09 pm ET

Jami:

So obvious sexual abuse isn’t enough for this group of deluded people to be brought to justice?
Young children are born into a small world where they have no choice but to do what their “leaders” tell them to do, which is get married, start having sex and having babies as soon as they hit puberty?

Tyranny of the majority? Are you kidding me? These CHILDREN need to be protected from these people, whom you lovingly call “the least popular amongst us.”

This is not a popularity contest. It is simply the protection of the innocent amongst us all. These people live in the dark ages, where men “rule” their women/girls and tell them who to marry and who to have sex with, whether they want to or not.

Please retract your previous blog and lose the “lawyer” argument. It’s poor logic and poorer common sense.

William   June 1st, 2008 10:49 pm ET

and now the judge is still trying to make the families criminals by imposing anything she wants. I think they are going to have to go back to the appet court and force her to return the children

Leave Your Comment


 

Comments are moderated by CNN, in accordance with the CNN Comment Policy, and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Also, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments will be posted.


subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

Sidebar takes you behind the scenes of the day's legal headlines with breaking news and in-depth analysis from In Session's anchors and correspondents.

Contributors
Ashleigh Banfield
Co-anchor of the daily trial program Banfield and Ford: Courtside
Ashleigh Banfield
Jack Ford
A former prosecutor and co-anchor of the daily trial program Banfield & Ford: Courtside
Jack Ford
Lisa Bloom
Anchor of the daily trial program Lisa Bloom: Open Court
Lisa Bloom
Jami Floyd
Former defense attorney and anchor of her own daily program Jami Floyd: Best Defense
Jami Floyd
Fred Graham
Senior Editor Fred Graham covers legal news in Washington, D.C.
Fred Graham
Jean Casarez
Attorney Jean Casarez covers trials around the country
Jean Casarez
Beth Karas
Former prosecutor Beth Karas covers trials around the country
Beth Karas
Categories
CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNN makes reasonable efforts to review all comments prior to posting and CNN may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement.
Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Business  |  Sports  |  Time.com
Podcasts  |  Blogs  |  CNN Mobile  |  Preferences  |  Email Alerts  |  CNN Radio  |  CNN Shop  |  Site Map
© 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress.com