|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Hey Krysta, did Opus mention the tired Democratic talking point of the Gonzalez/Owens "actvist judge" accusation? yeah he did
it's a lie. don't fall for it.
...and if he propagates that as truth then you must question his real motives behind the rest of the fear and smear campaign that he and the rest of his ilk propagate here and throughout main stream media. i know i do. god bless. |
Well why don't you elaborate on aforementioned falsity so we can all become learned on said "lie"es? This is Gonzalez's complete statement, please point out the misrepresentation:
| quote: |
The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. See ___ S.W.3d at ___. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. See id. at ___ (detailing legislative history). Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide the education, safety, health, and development of their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so. The Court said in Doe 1(I) that a minor must make at least three showings before she may exercise the bypass rights the Legislature gave "mature and sufficiently well informed" minors under section 33.003(i). In re Doe 1(I), ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2000). These showings are to ensure that the minor can demonstrate the level of maturity and knowledge the Legislature seems to have intended when it passed a statute that primarily protects parental rights, but also confers judicial bypass rights to certain minors. Based on the evidence of Doe's maturity and knowledge, I conclude the limitations upon parental rights in section 33.003(i) apply here. Therefore, I am compelled to grant Doe's application.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2.../sc/000224c.htm
|
___________________
Retro ...
|
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) 
