9th Circuit: Parents have no rights.....

[Cosmoline]

Was there not something from our Washington critters about breaking up the 9th circuit??

What ever became of that??

It keeps getting lost in committee. It would have been done decades ago if it weren't for all the political issues involving the 9th. There are actually a fair number of conservative judges in the circuit at the district and appeals level, but the headlines are dominated by the actions of a few liberal panels sitting in SF. Logistically it needs to be cut in at least two and preferably three pieces, with CA and HA staying in the 9th, a new circuit for the NW and AK and another circuit for the SW states outside California.

 

[Cosmoline]

Quite simply, would this ruling have been returned sixty years ago, with such approving language for the educational board? I think not - and thereby revealing a transition perhaps out of our hands, but nevertheless cause for great sadness.

Don't confuse dicta with holding. The 9th can spew all the left wing nonsense it wants, but none of that matters. What matters is the central holding, that an effort by parents to get the federal district court to overrule the choice of the school board in the teaching of sex ed should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because no federal civil rights or federal laws are involved. Any language in the opinion seeming to approve of what the board did is just dicta. Since the feds have no jurisdiction over the issue, their opinion about the correctness or incorrectness of the board's policy is hot air.

The last thing I would want to see is a conservative Supreme Court come in and overrule the 9th on this issue, yet again sticking its grubby hands into a purely local educational issue. A liberal Court did this in Brown and in spite of all the rhetoric about that episode the bottom line is the effort to force school districts to intermix races was an abject disaster that has had no long-term benefits whatsoever. The schools are even more divided and unequal than they were under Jim Crow.

If you think dealing with a bone-headed school board is bad--try a bone-headed Art. III district court judge. Under Brown these guys were given powers not even elected officials have ever had--to move people around like chips on a board.

Yes, parents have the right to educate their own children if they want to. But they do not have the right to overrule the will of the school board by citing some religious belief. If the elected board decides to put sex ed in place and that is indeed the will of the majority of local citizens, then the parents who don't like it may lump it. They can pull their kids from the schools. If we continue to let a minority of parents with fancy lawyers overrule what has always been an intensely democratic and local process we'll keep finding ourselves with the madness of opinions like Brown. Or opinions banning the pledge, for that matter. The federal courts need to get OUT of local schools FOREVER.

 

[Scott Evans]

I most certainly have the right and responsibility to decide what is appropriate for my under-age children to do, see, say, hear, or go. I’m their FATHER. I rule their world. You step inside that world and I rule you too!

The public school is an agent of the parents and people of a community. NOT the GOVERNMENT. We will tell them what to teach and not be forced to accept anything less for our children.

The 9th Circuit is irrelevant.

 

[wolf]

The public school is an agent of the parents and people of a community. NOT the GOVERNMENT. We will tell them what to teach and not be forced to accept anything less for our children.

The 9th Circuit is irrelevant.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````
scott...you seem to live in a place called reality...california is a place the twilight zone goes to when it wants to get scared...the school "system" out here would make you cry in mere seconds...and out here...they ARE govt schools...most don't work at all..and they need tens of billions of $ each year AND billion $ bond issues (ie:taxpayer $) to stay in existance...they may not teach kids how to read or do math...but they sure can spend money..

there is no 9th circuit..it was taken over by the twilight zone..

wolf

 

[bjbarron]

The 9th Circuit is irrelevant.

...and they get reversed more than any other circuit.

When one of our kids out-grew and out-smarted a 'special' program the school had, we wanted to pull him out of the program. The school had the balls to refuse to release him.

I jerked him out of that school the next day. Private school was a financial burden for two years, but worth it. Eventually he graduated from college, served in the Marines, and now has a terrific job.

Do not let the schools usurp your parental rights and authority...only you are responsible for how well your children are raised. If your kid grows up into a sheeple, you have only yourself to blame.

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" - Andrew Jackson

McCain-Feingold :cross off the 1st
Kelo :cross off the 5th

Single issue Roe supporters gave us this court...and thanks to them, none of these decisions help anyone, left or right.

I've got to tell you guys, I'm 60 and I'm seeing something I have never seen in nearly 50 years of understanding what was going on around me.

It's not the politicians, nor the special interests, nor the freakin' MSM that is gaining control. For the first time in my life I'm seeing the people take an interest again. Not as many as I would like, but more and more every day.

With sources of information outside of the conventional...people can start to get enough information to engender their own opinions.

I hope it keeps up and speeds up.

 

[coylh]

I highly recommend South Park episode 507 Proper Condom Use for a good discussion of the issue: (http://home.arcor.de/pla-scripts/scripts-507.htm).

 

[Chrontius]

Only Micro$oft likes exclusivity.

I agree with Cosmoline ... And what parent (with any common sense) believes that he/she will be the exclusive provider of information regarding sex to his/her children? I suspect most of you learned far more about sexual matters in/around your grade schools, far earlier than when your parents finally gave you the birds and the bees talk ...

My parents still haven't given me 'the birds and the bees' and I'm in college. If not for the internet and high school... well, suffice to say that I don't think parents should be the one and only source.

I don't insist that others hold to my moral values. But everyone else seems to think that it's OK for them to impose their morals on me and mine. So what's the point in discussing it?

SCHOOL VOUCHERS!!!!

So the way to fix an underfunded public school system is to deprive it of even more funding to pay for the private education of a few litigous bastards?

The issue isn't one of teaching. It's one of forcing children to accept moral values that conradict their religion, and possibly compromising their eternal salvation. The schools/government have a right to teach, but not to stand in the way of one's religion.

The way to heaven is not the way of rote repetition without thought. That demonstrates neither love nor faith and is extremely shortsighted. That's the way a computer thinks, not a moral free agent like a person.

 

[SouthpawShootr]

The 9th Circuit judges are out of control. We all know that. Problem is, these judges are appointed for life, thus they can make moronic judgments, throw them out there and nothing can be done until a higher court overturns them.

What to do?

I'm sure judges can be impeached. Seems I read that somewhere when I was in maybe 7th grade? However, seeing as it's never done, it might be easier to impeach a President than a sitting judge.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

My parents still haven't given me 'the birds and the bees' and I'm in college. If not for the internet and high school... well, suffice to say that I don't think parents should be the one and only source.

I can certainly understand why you would feel that parents should not be the only source. The question I have is this: From where does government gain the authority to dicatate to a parent what the other sources will be?

So the way to fix an underfunded public school system is to deprive it of even more funding to pay for the private education of a few litigous bastards?

Couple things here:

1) Most private schools would kill to have the budget a public school does. Hell, most of them would kill to have HALF of it.

2) Even insinuating a California public school is underfunded is a good way to get a lot of people to laugh in your face and write you off as seriously uninformed.

3) Question: From where do the public schools receive their funding? I'll give you a hint...its got a lot to do with those litigous bastards you just mentioned.

4) As the parents (remember them? Those are the big people in your house who gave you life, fed you, clothed you, write the checks for your college edumacation...yeah - them) are the ones who are actually paying the taxes which provide the funding for the public schools (yeah, i know - i just answered #3 for you), they can be thought of as the customers. Customers, when dissatisfied with a good or service, have every right in the world to take THEIR money and go spend it elsewhere.

The above may sound condescending, but i find the older I get, the less tolerance I have for someone without children calling those of us with them bastards when we get sick of the state overreaching its authority.

The way to heaven is not the way of rote repetition without thought. That demonstrates neither love nor faith and is extremely shortsighted. That's the way a computer thinks, not a moral free agent like a person.

Some things in life are learned through rote repetition so that one understands them without thought. Walking, eating, the understanding that fire is hot, etc. and virtually anything which you do at a subconscious level to ensure your very survival are all good examples. In case you were wondering, those lessons are taught to you by your parents. Regardless, we are not discussing the way to heaven or whether or not being taught about sex by your parents enables one to think freely. We are discussing whether or not parents have the right (and they do) to dictate to the school board that their children will not have sex discussed below a certain grade level and without parental consent.

Now, you may think this kind of thinking is quaint and old fashioned, and when I was still in college and thought I knew everything, i thought much the same way. Funny thing happened though - i grew up, got married, and as usually happens when two people love each other, we had a kid. (Gorgeous baby girl i might add). So, now i've got this little bundle of joy/pain/pride/embarrasssment/insert appropriate emotion of the moment here, and i think to myself "Do I want some bureaucrat who may have no children of his own teaching my 5 year old daughter about sex?" You would be amazed at the intensity of a response one receives from oneself to a question such as this.

So, in closing, I would suggest you consider things from the parents point of view. After all, they are ultimately responsible for that child's existence and raising - regardless of the opinion of the 9th Circus.

 

[coylh]

You would be amazed at the intensity of a response one receives from oneself to a question such as this.

I wouldn't. I find that Americans respond much more intensely to issues related to sex than other issues. Mention homosexuality, sexual education, pornography, or marriage issues and people go unglued. This seems to be our cultural quirk, as the same kinds of issues don't bother other peoples as much.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

I wouldn't. I find that Americans respond much more intensely to issues related to sex than other issues. Mention homosexuality, sexual education, pornography, or marriage issues and people go unglued. This seems to be our cultural quirk, as the same kinds of issues don't bother other peoples as much.

Ok - i'll grant you that. Doesnt change the fact that I dont want a public school teacher discussing it with my 5 year old. Do you?

 

[coylh]

HonorsDaddy, I don't have kids. If I did, I think I would want the highest quality sex education available. I found my own public school sex education (I think that would be at about age 13) minimal and timid, tending to favor the more medical aspects.

Anyway, the thing they were suing over doesn't sound egregious:

The controversy began in 2001 when a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School set out to conduct a psychological assessment test of students in the first, third and fifth grades.

A letter to parents asked for their consent to conduct the study but did not indicate that questions of a sexual nature would be asked. The survey included 79 questions divided into four parts. Ten of those questions were of a sexual nature.

I second the deference to local authority.

 

[NickEllis]

Don't confuse dicta with holding. The 9th can spew all the left wing nonsense it wants, but none of that matters.

Cosmoline, would you mind explaining to me the meaning between dicta and holding? It doesn't have to be long, but you are saying that none of the opinions expressed in that ruling (the whole, "parents have no right, etc...") establish precident, and will not be refered to in future rulings of this nature?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I find that hard to believe.

 

[Chrontius]

I can certainly understand why you would feel that parents should not be the only source. The question I have is this: From where does government gain the authority to dicatate to a parent what the other sources will be?

Couple things here:

1) Most private schools would kill to have the budget a public school does. Hell, most of them would kill to have HALF of it.

2) Even insinuating a California public school is underfunded is a good way to get a lot of people to laugh in your face and write you off as seriously uninformed.

3) Question: From where do the public schools receive their funding? I'll give you a hint...its got a lot to do with those litigous bastards you just mentioned.

4) As the parents (remember them? Those are the big people in your house who gave you life, fed you, clothed you, write the checks for your college edumacation...yeah - them) are the ones who are actually paying the taxes which provide the funding for the public schools (yeah, i know - i just answered #3 for you), they can be thought of as the customers. Customers, when dissatisfied with a good or service, have every right in the world to take THEIR money and go spend it elsewhere.

Tried public schools, tried private schools, learned more in public school, lost most to all of my faith in private school. And yes, it was a religeous school. I understand that private schools are waaay underfunded compared to public schools; the private schools still used Radio Shack computers until they switched to IBM DOS boxes; the public schools were still using Mac LCs. (the mac mini of their day--or two days before that day, really) Dunno about California, never been there, but at least here funding is/was falling short -- four classes of forty kids to a 'hall' dedicated to a grade. Noisy as hell, short on supplies...

Switching topics, I reserve the term 'litigous bastards' for the tenth of a percent of a tenth of a percent who either... I dunno. Work for Micro$oft or the RIAA/MPAA, or self-identify as members of Christian Identity. Parents may have every right to take their money and run, but for one problem. Some people are really, truly dependent on public schools to educate their children. I really do believe that better education and better prostpects lead to less crime, and statistically, these parents would be shooting themselves in the foot. Or really, their children, who would have to spend their entire lives with the consequences of that decision.

The above may sound condescending, but i find the older I get, the less tolerance I have for someone without children calling those of us with them bastards when we get sick of the state overreaching its authority.

Some things in life are learned through rote repetition so that one understands them without thought. Walking, eating, the understanding that fire is hot, etc. and virtually anything which you do at a subconscious level to ensure your very survival are all good examples. In case you were wondering, those lessons are taught to you by your parents. Regardless, we are not discussing the way to heaven or whether or not being taught about sex by your parents enables one to think freely. We are discussing whether or not parents have the right (and they do) to dictate to the school board that their children will not have sex discussed below a certain grade level and without parental consent.

Now, you may think this kind of thinking is quaint and old fashioned, and when I was still in college and thought I knew everything, i thought much the same way. Funny thing happened though - i grew up, got married, and as usually happens when two people love each other, we had a kid. (Gorgeous baby girl i might add). So, now i've got this little bundle of joy/pain/pride/embarrasssment/insert appropriate emotion of the moment here, and i think to myself "Do I want some bureaucrat who may have no children of his own teaching my 5 year old daughter about sex?" You would be amazed at the intensity of a response one receives from oneself to a question such as this.

So, in closing, I would suggest you consider things from the parents point of view. After all, they are ultimately responsible for that child's existence and raising - regardless of the opinion of the 9th Circus.

I understand that, and yet again, I'm not really finding any moral high ground on this issue. I agree that parents should not get exclusivity, but I think the schools also screwed up on this one -- did they check to see what the "volunteer mental health coucelor" 's survey was going to contain? My money is on 'no'.

 

[Cosmoline]

Cosmoline, would you mind explaining to me the meaning between dicta and holding? It doesn't have to be long, but you are saying that none of the opinions expressed in that ruling (the whole, "parents have no right, etc...") establish precident, and will not be refered to in future rulings of this nature?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I find that hard to believe.

Holding is that portion of the court's opinion directly necessary for the particular action it is taking. In this case the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim because there were no federal statutes involved and no federal constitutional issues. The 9th Circuit affirmed on those grounds. That's the limit of the holding--that parents do not have a federal constitutional right to have sex ed taught to their kid in a particular way. Any discussion the court had about the reasonable nature of the school district's actions would be dicta, because what the court does or does not think about the school's policy is not important.

In the 9th Circuit in federal courts the case will stand as precedent for the dismissal of similar complaints from parents about the actions of the school board. If they cannot cite a recognized federal constitutional right or federal statute, their case will be dismissed.

 

[pax]

Chrontius ~

Before you say one more word about "underfunded public schools," I want you to do just a tiny bit of research.

First, I want you to locate a list of the states & their per-capita student spending.

Then, I want you to correlate that list with the scores of each state's students on standardized test scores.

The result should be eye-opening -- if you are an honest person.

pax

Most of the presidential candidates' economic packages involve 'tax breaks,' which is when the government, amid great fanfare, generously decides not to take quite so much of your income. In other words, these candidates are trying to buy your votes with your own money. -- Dave Barry

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My main point got lost somewhere along the way. So let me make it clear, just in case anybody out there cares...

The thing that really infuriates me is that the 9th Circuit Court seems awfully eager to tear down traditional and/or Christian values. Some of us don't hold to the tenets of modern liberal philosohpy. In a free country, this shouldn't be a problem. Yet it seems that at every opportunity, the 9th makes a ruling expressly designed to limit our ability to live our lives our own way.

I don't care if some Californians do want to give their kids a sexual identity at age 5. I don't care if some Californians don't.

But it really pisses me off that the 9th circuit court (aka "the government") won't allow us each to decide for ourselves.

The court should have ruled "Case dismissed." Instead, they couldn't resist the opportunity to rule "Case dismissed, and you folks with your morals are so stupid!"

So let me take this opportunity to be petty, and give the 9th circuit court a great big middle finger.

 

[coylh]

Headless Thompson Gunner, it works both ways. In a free country people shouldn't be subjugated by christian values either.

Have you seen how many people want the 10 commandments hung on the fronts of court houses? This might not seem significant to you as it probably flows smoothly within your beliefs. But there are many atheists like me who get along in the world while being exposed to different views.

 

[longeyes]

If the elected board decides to put sex ed in place and that is indeed the will of the majority of local citizens, then the parents who don't like it may lump it. They can pull their kids from the schools.

I agree--but how long it will be before homeschooling is disallowed based on some creative interpretation?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Headless Thompson Gunner, it works both ways. In a free country people shouldn't be subjugated by christian values either.

Have you seen how many people want the 10 commandments hung on the fronts of court houses? This might not seem significant to you as it probably flows smoothly within your beliefs. But there are many atheists like me who get along in the world while being exposed to different views.

Christians have to exercise a fair amount of tolerance to get by in this (largely nonreligious) society. We all do. That's what happens when you live in a free country.

I don't force others to hold my beliefs and values. Yet everyone else expects me to abide by their values. And these days the courts love to back them up.

If you want your son to know all about sex at age 5, that's fine with me. Teach him whatever you think is best.

If you're comfortable letting complete strangers talk to your daughter about touching herself, then allow it at your discretion. I don't care.

But how dare you presume to make those choices for my children?!

I'll let you live your life your way. Please, let me live mine my way.

 

[loisfromcenterfire]

Birds & Bees

In 1998, my husband's job transferred us from Louisville KY, to Galesburg IL. Two of my daughters were in high school and had to have IL school physicals before they could start class. The Dr. providing the physical informed my daughters along with my husband and I that 50% of the students enrolled in the high school had STD's. So apparently, not all parents are doing a good enough job with the birds and bees discussion. If not the parents, who?

 

[buzz_knox]

In 1998, my husband's job transferred us from Louisville KY, to Galesburg IL. Two of my daughters were in high school and had to have IL school physicals before they could start class. The Dr. providing the physical informed my daughters along with my husband and I that 50% of the students enrolled in the high school had STD's. So apparently, not all parents are doing a good enough job with the birds and bees discussion. If not the parents, who?

A local high school has it even worse. That high school teaches sex ed. So, I guess the schools aren't doing a good job either.

 

[pax]

But how dare you presume to make those choices for my children?!

And that's the crux of the issue, right there.

No matter what the school does -- no matter what the school teaches or does not teach -- someone's parental prerogatives are going to be stomped upon, because none of the kids are there entirely by free choice.

Education can't be content-free (and if it were it would offend someone). But as soon as you put content in, someone's values are stepped upon.

pax

The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best. -- Thomas Sowell

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Not necessarily.

All the school has to do is keep the parents informed. The Palmdale School District could have told the parents ahead of time that they wanted to conduct a sexually explicit survey of the 1st graders. They could have given the parents a chance to opt out of this particular part of the "curriculum." But they didn't.

Why not make it a choice for the parents? Those parents who want their children to take part may grant their permission. Those parents who don't want their children to take part may deny permission.

Everyone would get what they want this way. (Except maybe the schools, who want to be able to do whatever they please with our children.)

I suspect that the school deliberately obscured the nature of their survey. If the parents knew their children were going to be exposed to that kind of material, I bet many/most of them would have objected.

 

[coylh]

I think that's a reasonable solution (too late now though).

The school, for their part, did ask for consent, but they should have included the survey so the parents knew what they were consenting to.

The parents, on their end, need to chill out: if they want to micromanage their kids' educations they should homeschool.