Well its a good thing that they aren't asked to be child psychologists, but instead rule on the law.
Yes, the way courts work is AFTER the judge(s) have been BRIEFED on the issues at hand by ALL COUNSEL REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT, they THEN rule on the case. It doesn't work if the judges are laymen ruling on behalf of their own self-briefing/guessing re: one of the parties to the case.
Supreme Court justices are not 'laymen'- they are Justices of the Supreme Court- as described in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court decides who is required to be present- as it decides what cases it will hear.
The Supreme Court has never decided that children were parties to be represented in any marriage case
The Supreme Court isn't infallible. If they were, then no case would ever be reversed. But they have been, haven't they?
And, what do you call a case where the sitting judge or judge panel both acts as representative(s) to one of the parties to a case (who has no counsel present nor invited), and the final deciders of said case? Answer: tyranny. The exact type of tyranny we created our country for to escape this type of kangaroo justice going on in England at the time.
Again, 5,000 courts and old case law may have fucked up FUNDAMENTAL justice, that doesn't make their ****-ups legit. We're not talking about a typo on a brief here. We're talking about the systematic exclusion of parties fundamental to a question of law BEING EXCLUDED FROM BRIEFING EACH AND EVERY CASE INVOLVING THEM. And it was so because even learned people forgot about the Infancy Doctrine with respect to children sharing contractual benefits with adults requiring them to have unique representation at any contract-revision hearing.
Ooopsies. We'd better get on that before there are no more protections for children left. I mean after all, said **** ups just recently removed either a father or mother for them for life as a convenience to crafty adults.... Might want to read the base premise for the creation of the Infancy Doctrine. I'd say blocking out representation of children at Obergefell and Dumont v Lyon was/is a rather crafty act on behalf of the courts from the bottom up. Too bad in law school such little emphasis is given covering the Infancy Doctrine and it's long line of supporting case law:
Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
1. ELEMENTS AND RATIONALES OF THE INFANCY DOCTRINE
A. The Rule
The infancy doctrine protects persons under the legally designated age of adulthood from both "crafty adults" and their own bad judgment. The doctrine is based on the presumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract.
I argue that the courts may have known that kids were required to have representation, but that liberal activist judges keenly intuited an argument against dissolving their ancient benefit from marriage: both mother AND father. The more conservative judges in various panels were too buried in case load and too focused on "well we've never required this representation before so it must be legit" to stage a blockade in the process as required until the problem was/is corrected. So to eliminate that little pesky argument from briefing, they simply didn't invited the required separate counsel to attend. It would bung up the works the liberal judge cartel so smoothly planned to look "like legitimate justice".
