Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[Silhouette]

Long story short: Money has bought this situation. The tranny responsible for Judge Moore's being persecuted by the cult of LGBT..Oh, the drama (queen)... ^^ (I'm sure He/She/It would make a great mom? dad? ??????? for children to be raised in His/Her/It's home)

Who cares, right? Marriage is about adults, right? Not kids.. Well...even the cult of LGBT cites the welfare of children as intimately tied to the concept of who can marry. Often the worst critics of another sexual orientation, polyamorists (polygamy) are LGBTs. How's that for irony? They say polygamy would be bad for the kids and this is why it shouldn't be legal...but their type of "marriage" should. Oh what a hypocritical stance.. More on the upcoming polygamy case headed to the USSC, also the same time Judge Moore is facing charges: Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll Their case outline is due September 10th, 2016, just a couple weeks away.

Roy Moore's case is set for trial September 28, 2016:

Suspended Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore will go on trial next month on judicial ethics charges after the Alabama Court of the Judiciary late Monday issued an order that denied Moore's request to dismiss the charges....Before the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled, but after a federal judge had declared the state's marriage laws unconstitutional, Moore first sent a letter to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley on Jan. 27 questioning the propriety of federal jurisdiction over the state's marriage laws, Carroll said.
..."The Chief Justice has abused his power to pursue his personal agenda," Carroll said. Roy Moore headed to trial; court denies motion to dismiss charges

I would say the prosecutor Carroll has it exactly backwards. The USSC has abused power to pursue their personal agenda. And all Moore was doing was calling them out on it. Moore's position protects the children of the state of Alabama. And should he prevail, all other states seeking to protect their children via the Infants Doctrine will have equal legal footing.

As the legal system prepares to pummel Judge Roy Moore of Alabama; it might want to take stock of its own precarious arguments...

Enter the case: New York vs Ferber (1982 USSC)

Obergefell is null and void because of New York vs Ferber (1982 USSC). That case found that adults cannot exercise any civil right to the detriment, mental or physical, of a child. "Gay marriage" uses a contract to permanently divorce a child from either a mother or father for life. There are numerous studies that show this is harmful to a child. And where single parents do deprive a child of the opposite parent, it isn't written in a contract and hope still exists. The contractual part of this harm to children is the crux of it. Here's more how girls growing up without a mother or boys without a father causes them to fall behind their peers: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

The Infants Doctrine: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=lawreview
There exists a legal bedrock document called "The Infants Doctrine". It started over in Europe but is the foundation of law here as well. Basically long ago people figured out that children were vulnerable and adults very clever and often would take advantage of childrens' vulnerability to make money or whatever. So the Infants Doctrine was created as a permanent hold against that trend; putting the welfare of children at the end of the day, or any question of law, over that of conniving adults. In New York vs Ferber, what was going on was a man, Ferber was trying to assert that his 1st Amendment Constitutional right included his right to publish child pornography. First lower courts said, reluctantly, "yes, freedom of speech". But the USSC said "no, not freedom of speech". And their logic drew on the Infants Doctrine. So in that landmark case, the Court interpreted that the Infants Doctrine was superior to all laws in the US; even the highest law in the land: The Constitution. How about them apples?

The Infants Doctrine and contracts:
The Infants Doctrine says that no contract (or law even, see NY vs Ferber) may exist that has as any of its terms a bind that harms a child physically or mentally. The Doctrine goes further to say that if such a contract DOES exist, has been created, or even upheld as is the case with Obergefell, that contract is null and void upon its face, without any legal challenge. In other words, the Infants Doctrine overrules the USSC. It even overrules the US Constitution; which is the same as saying it overrules the US Supreme Court, should they find in opposition to the Doctrine. New York vs Ferber establishes it. This is why Obergefell is an illegal Ruling. That and for a half dozen other equally weighty reasons.

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed. Of course, this takes a court order to achieve but it is an important deterrent to commercial hustlers who would not hesitate to extract money from a child. Contracts With Children

It is that last bit where the state of Alabama's Judge Moore will prevail if he is clever enough. And whereas just "gay marriage" alone might argue fiercely that kids are an afterthought, the question of polygamy now looming before Justice Sotomayor of the USSC and how those marriages will affect children sheds a new spotlight on the intrinsic anticipated implied legal rights children have to the marriage arrangement in each state. Will the USSC now override what is right or wrong for each child in each state based on "current market or fad trends"?...

***********
However;

There have been erosions attempted on the meaning and essence of the Infants Doctrine; and get this, OUT OF MARKET CONVENIENCES! ie: $$ has bought the detriment of children and the need for the original inflexible terms of the Infants Doctrine is reiterated in its very overturning!

Meanwhile, the legal standards for demonstrating sufficient assent to be bound to contractual terms, which may be difficult to find and understand, are dropping. In fact, some judges are stressing the market benefits of binding participants to contracts that may not have withstood contract doctrine scrutiny in the past. Most notably is a trend begun by Judge Easterbrook in ProCD v. Zeidenberg in 1996. He argued for a result that conformed to the realities of current market needs, even if at the expense of traditional contract formation requirements. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/bclt_IPSC2010_Preston(1).pdf

It's embarrassingly obvious that Judge Easterbrook had zero grasp of the Infants Doctrine. And that case itself is illegal. (New York vs Ferber USSC 1982)

"Current market needs"...That isn't a peripheral defiance of the Infants Doctrine. That is a complete defiance of its core meaning and the complete destruction of it. ProCD v Zeidenberg (1996) was the essential legal death of the Infants Doctrine. In the past, the reason it was created, remember, was to KEEP CHILDREN FROM ADULTS MARKETING THEM VIA CURRENT MARKET TRENDS!!

What have we become? Are we a nation of infidels after all? Who else would sell their childrens' welfare on the auction block but the scum of the earth?

 

[Silhouette]

Expanding the erosion...courtesy of liberal San Franciso legal think tanks..

As courts have looked to ProCD in viewing Internet contracts, they have used these market justifications to continually expand the assent doctrine, finding both market and other practical justifications for enforcing contract that would otherwise fail under a traditional assent analysis. 13 Moreover, judicial acceptance of terms once thought to be draconian, such as binding arbitration and choice of venue provisions, has broadened. The confluence of these developments makes this an appropriate time to reassess the infancy doctrine. A reasonable argument can be made that, in addition to the traditional criticisms of the infancy doctrine... the infancy doctrine is particularly inappropriate with respect to online contracts because adolescents possess a degree of technical savvy that in many cases exceeds that of adults; and because the infancy doctrine threatens the flourishing of online businesses that depend on adolescents.... https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/bclt_IPSC2010_Preston(1).pdf

Wouldn't want to interfere with the commerce that makes money online off of adolescent boys and girls. They may be tech savvy; but their lack of emotional maturity precludes them from entering into contracts nevertheless.

Whereas thinking people might go on to finish this paragraph ^^ with "and so we need to tighten back up on the Infants Doctrine in order to not see New York vs Ferber overturned"...the article goes on instead to argue for FURTHER EROSION where children can be bound to the whims of adults; online no less! No room to fear there for sure. So soon, "barely legal" will be "illegal, but allowed anyway". Remember, New York vs Ferber found that a man has no constitutional right to the 1st Amendment if it involves free speech's expression leading to publishing child pornography (or anything else harming a child physically or emotionally). Remember, this article in this post's quote is arguing to slacken child protections even further, citing the ProCD vs Zeidenberg case's demolition of the foundation of the Infants Doctrine (Near end of the OP is discussed).

In short, ProCD vs Zeidenberg is the legal beginning of the end of all protections barring child exploitation. It is the wedge into which further wedges have been driven and will continue to be driven unless the CRUCIAL importance of the Infants Doctrine is reiterated in law. If you care about kids, you'd better care about ProCD vs Zeidenberg.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There exists a legal bedrock document called "The Infants Doctrine".

Please post a link to said document of what I believe is actually referred to as "the infancy doctrine". While such a doctrine does indeed exist for purposes of contract and ownership, I have with a number of inquiries been unable to find any such free standing document.

 

[Silhouette]

There exists a legal bedrock document called "The Infants Doctrine".

Please post a link to said document of what I believe is actually referred to as "the infancy doctrine". While such a doctrine does indeed exist for purposes of contract and ownership, I have with a number of inquiries been unable to find any such free standing document.

I agree. I've done the same search. I believe it exists on the shelf of every lawyer's office but has not as of yet been translated online. If you find something will you post the link? It isn't as if it doesn't exist; because law experts everywhere reference it.

OK, someone has printed at least parts of it online here; http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=lawreview

 

[JoeB131]

By your logic, then, if Kids have more rights than the adults, then.

Divorce should be forbidden under ANY Circumstances if there is a child under 18.
unwed mothers should be compelled to marry their baby-daddies

I mean,right? I promise you, more kids will be adversely effected by THOSE two things than will ever be impacted by a gay couple adopting.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The "Infancy doctrine" allows children to disavow contracts they entered as minors, if they choose. That's all it does.

It has no application to this case.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a paper that explains it:

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=lawreview

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Sorry pal. The Infants Doctrine was created TO PROTECT CHILDREN from the machinations, neglect and abuse by adults. Might want to give the full 35 pages in the link in post #4 here a read and get back to us..

***
The Santa Clara Law Review in the link in post #4 has a 35 page review of the Infants Doctrine. And, given my previous posts here, it on its very last page agrees with post #2. Believe it or not, I had not read this when I posted #2 here:

Although few courts have addressed the infancy doctrine in recent years, the growth of online contracting and the weakening of traditional contractual protections, namely the decreased requirements for assent and the broadening acceptance of oppressive terms, have left minors with little protection beyond the infancy doctrine against overreaching by adults....Youth advocates, legislatures, and courts have the capacity to restore the infancy doctrine in the legal system and encourage its appropriate use. By educating minors and reforming the doctrine to reduce its potential for misuse, the doctrine can once again fully serve its intended purposes.

So the Santa Clara Law Review agrees that the Doctrine which it cites as supremely important for the protection of children against their marketing and/or exploitation and/or neglect and/or abuse by adults, has been essentially gutted.

The Moore case would be an excellent time to stab the scorpion's barb into the hypocrisy of the liberal cult of LGBT using children alternately to beat back the rights of polygamists and at the same time as "not having any anticipated intrinsic rights to the marriage contract" when it comes to themselves. These arguments would put the focus back on what's best for children and not for adults and would strengthen the Infants Doctrine. A society without the Infants Doctrine or its substantive equivalent is a society perched on the edge of an abyss.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Santa Clara Law Review in the link in post #4 has a 35 page review of the Infants Doctrine. And, given my previous posts here, it on its very last page agrees with post #2. Believe it or not, I had not read this when I posted #2 here:

Although few courts have addressed the infancy doctrine in recent years, the growth of online contracting and the weakening of traditional contractual protections, namely the decreased requirements for assent and the broadening acceptance of oppressive terms, have left minors with little protection beyond the infancy doctrine against overreaching by adults....Youth advocates, legislatures, and courts have the capacity to restore the infancy doctrine in the legal system and encourage its appropriate use. By educating minors and reforming the doctrine to reduce its potential for misuse, the doctrine can once again fully serve its intended purposes.

So the Santa Clara Law Review agrees that the Doctrine which it cites as supremely important for the protection of children against their marketing by adults, has been essentially gutted.

The Moore case would be an excellent time to stab the scorpion's barb into the hypocrisy of the liberal cult of LGBT using children alternately to beat back the rights of polygamists and at the same time as "not having any anticipated intrinsic rights to the marriage contract" when it comes to themselves. These arguments would put the focus back on what's best for children and not for adults and would strengthen the Infants Doctrine. A society without the Infants Doctrine or its substantive equivalent is a society perched on the edge of an abyss.

You're missing the point, I think.

"Infancy doctrine" does not apply to contracts between two adults.

 

[Silhouette]

Quit trying to obfuscate the issue to serve your diversion theDoctorisin. The Infants Doctrine is not merely about contracts; it's more importantly about what contracts DO to children; or do not do. And in either case if it is found the DOING or NOT DOING harms children, those terms are VOID UPON THEIR FACE.

This doctrine is so important that the USSC found in the landmark case New York vs Ferber (1982) that even the US Constitution doesn't rise above it when it comes to harm done to children either mentally or physically. The USSC said then that even though Ferber had an undeniable right to his 1st Amendment free speech, even affirmed in a lower appeals court, that that undeniable right stopped short at the doorstep of the Infants Doctrine's provisions that no legal situation (even outside contracts) could exist to harm a child. So powerful was this Finding, that even the US Constitution could not stand in the way.

So in other words, your claim that the Infants Doctrine is "just some piddly legal gibberish about kids and contracts" is woefully inadequate to describe what that Doctrine really encompasses. It kicked the US Constitution's ass at least once on Official Record.

To answer post #5, divorce is reluctantly granted by states, often after mandatory resolution counseling is prescribed, and encompasses "what's best for the children". Where a hostile home situation occurs that is harming the children, divorce serves the Infants Doctrine by lessening their suffering via a legal remedy. Even still; the courts flip over backwards to keep the kids in contact with BOTH their mother AND father. See the OP for details and the link to "The 2010 Prince's Trust Youth Survey"...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Quit trying to obfuscate

That's the definition of irony, right there.

 

[Silhouette]

Odd^^ A moderator attempting a strawman in a thread. I guess you're setting a fine example eh?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Odd^^ A moderator attempting a strawman in a thread. I guess you're setting a fine example eh?

A poster passive aggressively whining about how I post because they can't respond to my comments? What a shock!

 

[mdk]

What a cornucopia of utter bullshit. Gosh, where to start:

Children are not an implied party to a marriage contract in any state. Not one. You've imagined it.

New York v. Ferber dealt with state obscenity laws as well as the sale and manufacturing of child pornography. It has nothing to do with marriage and doesn't make Obergefell v. Hodges null and void. Again, you've imagined it.

The Infancy Doctrine has nothing to do with Obergefell, has nothing to do with contracts between other adults, and, is not superior to the US Constitution. The Infancy Doctrine is also not cited anywhere in Ferber. Again, you've imagined it.

The Prince's Trust study dealt with children missing an adult role model of the opposite sex. It no way studies parenting of any kind and in no way states that said role model can only be found in a parent. A role model could a teacher, a coach, a pastor, a boss, another family member, etc. Again, you've imagined it.

This thread is just another one of your greatest hits of hapless legal bullshit that you hope will end gay marriage. The key theme in all this, is that nobody is bound by whatever legal nonsense you pull our of your ass and it is the main reason why all of your legal predictions fail so miserably. You would be wise to remember that if you wish to stop making yourself look like an obsessive fool.

 

[mdk]

Odd^^ A moderator attempting a strawman in a thread. I guess you're setting a fine example eh?

lol. Refuting your silly imagination isn't a straw man. It is simply refuting your silly imagination.

 

[ogibillm]

how long until the idiots in alabama put moore back on the bench after he loses this go around?

 

[Silhouette]

how long until the idiots in alabama put moore back on the bench after he loses this go around?

I guess the citizens of Alabama can do as they please. Unless you want all things in the separate states to be controlled under threat by 5 people in DC?...even when harm to children is the result...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

how long until the idiots in alabama put moore back on the bench after he loses this go around?

From what I've heard, his support is waining, just like Sheriff Joe's.

But we'll see, I don't put anything past voters.

 

[ogibillm]

how long until the idiots in alabama put moore back on the bench after he loses this go around?

From what I've heard, his support is waining, just like Sheriff Joe's.

But we'll see, I don't put anything past voters.

Let's hope you're right.

 

[ogibillm]

how long until the idiots in alabama put moore back on the bench after he loses this go around?

I guess the citizens of Alabama can do as they please. Unless you want all things in the separate states to be controlled under threat by 5 people in DC?...even when harm to children is the result...

they sure can. if they want to keep showing the rest of the country just how dymb and backwards they are theyll keep on placing the disgraced asshole on the bench.