I'm gonna make my posts friends only from here on out. I haven't been adding people in a long time because I met my non-gold-user limit like 2 years ago. So email me at teaforthetillerman@gmail.com, since I'll probably forget to come back to this post to check it very often.

Note that although this post appears first to you, I have several posts since this one already as of a couple days later. Soon this post will be off my front page and I'll forget to check it. Better to email me or send me a pleo message, if you're gold.

Ahem. You guys don't get it. Email me. I can't see this post on my front page anymore.

i like clint eastwood, especially when he tells spike lee to "shut his face."

tf2 = AWESOME

LOL. (via volokh, via someone else i forget who)

Thank God, the FLDS kids are all home! That took far, far, too long, but I guess we should be grateful for a separation of powers and a system of appeals that allows cooler heads to prevail. It's tempting to lose faith in the appellate system, but it produced the right result in this case. It's also tempting to hate state legislatures, but once the checks they had put in place were enforced by the judiciary, the executive power which ran amuk here was restricted. Woot!

Impeach J. Walther.

heheh

E> xkcd.com

I'm beating the other blogs to this.

The ACLU finally filed an amicus brief on behalf of the FLDS children. Read it here. Good stuff.

Response to state's petition is here.

I'm expecting an opinion from SCOT this afternoon. Tomorrow morning at the latest. I would hate to be a SCOT clerk this week.

Amicus brief from some stereotypical social worker type woman.

WOOOT!!! Favorable ruling! Orders are here. This isn't a ruling, I don't think, on the general issue, but a ruling on the petition for emergency relief (i.e. for the state not to have to follow the 3rd court of appeals' order). That means that for now, at least, a few of the kids, at least, are getting to go home.

MARS ON A TRICYCLE. As I'm understanding it, the court ruled 6-3 that CPS didn't satisfy the legal requirements for removing any of the children, and the trial court abused its discretion in giving the state guardianship. The three dissenting members of the court agree with the majority that the state didn't satisfy legal requirements for removing anyone except the prepubescent girls, although they think the state presented adequate evidence for the removal of adolescent girls.

In other words, it looks like a unanimous ruling that the trial court abused its discretion in the removal of the vast majority of the kids.

Upon further reading, it does look like a full endorsement of the 3rd court of appeals' decision.