Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Anonymous Tip: The Lefty Judge

Anonymous Tip: The Lefty Judge

Last updated on: January 29, 2016 at 8:53 am by Libby Anne

Anonymous Tip: The Lefty Judge 2016-01-29T08:53:56-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 199-200

This week is full of procedural detail, and I initially thought it was mostly filler. But as I looked more closely, I realized that it is actually extremely important to what is going on here—perhaps even the heart of the message Farris is trying to offer his readers.

It’s Monday morning now, and Peter has nearly finished his civil rights complaint. Joe suggests some changes, Sally types up a cover sheet, and it’s good to go.

Peter walked the eight blocks down Riverside Avenue, Spokane’s main business street, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on the top floor of the federal building.

There’s another line for your Spokane guidebook.

But the pressing question is, which judge will receive the case? There are two full-time federal judges in Spokane, but sometimes cases are given to retired “senior” full-time judges, and there’s no way for a lawyer to determine who will get their file when they file a case. Peter pays the filing fee and, once the paperwork is done, is eager to learn which judge got the case. The answer? Judge Stokes.

Stokes was a senior judge. He had gone into semi-retirement two years earlier after serving fifteen years. He had been appointed to the bench by Jimmy Carter in 1977 after a twenty-year career as a flamboyant litigator for a variety of liberal causes—including a number of cases where he had been a volunteer attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

So, Peter thinks about it, and isn’t sure what getting Stokes portents. Farris tells us that Stokes is “no-nonsense on procedural matters” and that Peter has appeared before him a number of times. Peter is clearly worried about the ACLU ties. He heads back to his office to find Joe hard at work on cases that, you know, actually pay money.

“We got Stokes on the Landis file,” Peter said as eh stuck his head in the door.

“That’s great,” Joe replied.

“Great? He’s such lefty. Why is that great?” Peter asked.

“Precisely for that reason,” Joe replied. “You’ve got a very strong constitutional rights complaint against the government. Better a former ACLU lawyer appointed by a Democrat president than one of the Republican appointees who spent hitter careers defending corporations.”

“I never thought of it that way,” Peter said.

“Stokes will not let you will automatically. I have no idea ho the feels about child abuse cases. He may go off on some left-wing bleeding heart binge because the case involves the so-called need to protect children. But if this were any other kind of case where the government busted into somebody’s home without a warrant, Stokes would hang the government’s hide on the wall.”

“so-called need to protect children”?

“so-called need to protect children”?!

“SO-CALLED need to protect children”?!?!

$)(&%@(#*$_@#))@#%&(#&$&$_@*#$

Okay, now that that’s out of my system, let’s deal with the content here, shall we? Because actually what’s going on here is very interesting.

In his work as a lawyer and an activist, Farris goes to great lengths to speak of parents’ “fourth amendment rights” and the fact that the Constitution protects against search and seizure without a warrant. And he’s right. The problem is that children are not property. Does a social worker legally have to have either the owner’s permission, a warrant, or exigent circumstances to enter a home? Yes. But again, children are not property. Is there a difference between a parent refusing a social worker access to their child and a parent refusing a social worker access to their house? I would argue that there is. Besides, isn’t it the child’s house too? I’m not sure where are the lines should be drawn, but there are interesting discussions to be had here—discussions Farris isn’t even thinking about.

There are other interesting discussions to be had that Farris isn’t thinking about as well. For example, Farris seems much more concerned about the fact that Donna pushed her way into Gwen’s home than he is about the forced strip search of four-year-old Casey. While I’m not a lawyer, I would guess that a case like this could have the potential to force judges to think about children’s rights with regard to searches. When a child needs to be searched for bruises, or questioned about potential abuse, does that child have the right to experience these things in a way that makes them feel as comfortable and at ease as possible? What obligations does the social worker have to the child in how they go about carrying out their investigations? Now that could make for an interesting case!

Farris is taking what could be a very interesting case asking very interesting questions and turning it into something one-dimensional and flat, something that voids Casey’s rights and interests entirely and makes her into little more than Gwen’s property. Joe’s remark about “the so-called need to protect children” and his use of the term “left-wing bleeding heart” to refer to children’s rights activism rather puts the nail in that coffin. It’s a disgusting waste of what could be an interesting push to further children’s rights, not limit them.

With this out of the way, next week we get to see Blackburn, Donna, and Rita’s reactions when they receive news of the suit.

Uncategorized

Anonymous Tip

Previous Post

January 29, 2016

Time for This Millennial Mom to Buy Some Barbies!

Next Post

January 30, 2016 Saturday Link Love: Domestic Abuse, David Barton, Scurvy, and Interrupting Children

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

And my God will meet all your ____ according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dreams Prayers Hopes Needs