9th Circus leftists

[Superman]

Exactly, Jeff. You've got it.

Except for the Court thing. Again, I think they ruled on a specific narrow question of law, and ruled correctly and.......with a good result. By ruling that this issue is not pre-empted under Federal law, this Court was pushing the decisions back to the local level.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Moses
In my home sex is discussed openly as soon as the kids ask meaningful questions. That's my call as a parent. They have also attended the schools sex-ed programs and found them to be error filled and strangely presumptive.

Yeah, but you are a good parent. How about all the kids who have crappy ones, or scared ones, or absent ones?

It is sad that the public school system has to take care of so much of the spectrum of things normally associated with "parenting" but that is the reality of our current society.

[jyl]

Coming into this discussion late - my two cents:

The key point here is that the court was ruling on whether the action by the school was prohibited by the constitution, not whether it was wise, appropriate, stupid, etc.

The court is saying that the constitution does not give individual parents a right to control what their children are taught in school regarding sex or presumably other subjects.

You should see that the contrary ruling would be impractical. Each parent could demand that the school teach or not teach a particular thing, based on that parent's personal belief. What Mul and Len might want their children to be taught is likely to be different from what Superman and Todd might want, and so on. You basically couldn't teach sex education in that situation - and as the precedent is further applied, you'd have trouble teaching anything that even one parent finds controversial: history, biology, civic studies, etc.

I think the parents in this case have a remedy, and that is to vote out the school board and/or otherwise apply political pressure. The remedy is not the constitution.

Some people have a tendency to assume that whatever they find objectionable should be legally prohibited by "the Constitution". Then they turn around and complain about a litigious society and clamour for strict constructionist judges.

[Moses]

Originally posted by nostatic
How about all the kids who have crappy ones, or scared ones, or absent ones?

It is sad that the public school system has to take care of so much of the spectrum of things normally associated with "parenting" but that is the reality of our current society.

That's not the problem. The problem is that good, well meaning parents will not have the option of declining the schools sex-education program.

"There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children..."

That's not just "sort of" wrong, it's completely backwards. I believe that parents should have the absolute and inviolate right to be the exclusive providers of information regarding sexual matters to their children if they choose to.

Look, there are many ways to parent. I have friends whose home sex education basically amounts to ; "Sex before marriage is a sin and is not acceptable". That is not my approach, but they are good people raising good kids. Sexuality is a delicate issue wrapped in morality, religion, psycology. It is way beyond the mission of the public schools to think that they have a "right" to provide sexual information to a child despite the objections of a parent.

[jyl]

How about this. Put yourself in the judge's shoes. I invite you guys to find and quote the Article or Amendment to the US Constitution which gives each individual parent control over how a specific subject is taught in a public school. Let's see how "activist" a judge you'd have to be, to make such a ruling.

[Superman]

Moses, just as a basic tenet of capitalism is this "if you don't like it, buy somewhere else" option, at a minimum, parents have this option. Yeah I know, I don't think much of this dodge on the part of capitalists and its resultant assertion that some commercial venture will provide a healthful and appropriate and responsible alternative. But in this case, the primary option (before we get into your right to home-school, or your right to use private schools), the public school system, is YOUR system. What the court did in this case is push the decisions down toward you. You are a good parent and intelligent and active. I imagine you will indeed exert all necessary and appropriate control over how your children are handled in a public school system (if that is where they are or will go). I'd be very surprized if any parent ever is placed into a situation where they cannot control the content, or even the existence of their child, in a sex education course. In the instant case, the parents had every opportunity to control that. This decision DID NOT say that a child MUST participate in such-and-such a study.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by Superman
I'd be very surprized if any parent ever is placed into a situation where they cannot control the content, or even the existence of their child, in a sex education course.

But you fail to observe that this decision does exactly that. They say the parents have no right to any input on this matter. I will grant you that this is not a right delineated in the Constitution, but then, neither is the "right" to an abortion for a minor, or anyone else for that matter.

In this case, the parents were not notified of the content of the survey. Perhaps it was discussed at a school board meeting, but most people I know with kids are too busy working and paying taxes to attend every school board meeting. There are a lot of bad parents out there, and they tend to be the ones with the most kids, but that does not mean the good parents should be penalized for taking an interest

[Burnin' oil]

Super,

The Court said, "Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students." What does that mean to you? What rights do parents have in regard to what public schools teach their children? You say that you would "be very surprized if any parent ever is placed into a situation where they cannot control the content, or even the existence of their child, in a sex education course." I would too, but the Court clearly states parents do not have that right.

[Jeff Higgins]

On further reflection, I stand corrected on my stance concerning the court's decision. Those who have chimed in with a strict Constitutional interpretation of their decision are correct. Pushing this back to the local level is the right thing to do.

This does, of course, demand responsibility and action at the local level. This is sounding more and more like parents that were asleep at the wheel and only woke up after the fact. The time for their input was when the school board was asking for it, not after the fact pretending they never had the chance.

So what at first cut appears to be an evil, secretive school board being supported by a dastardly left-wing court falls appart upon closer examination. They are still our schools, our communities, to get involved with and shape. Those who choose not to might want to reconsider raising hell after the fact. The courts are there to help us settle these disputes when all else fails. It's too bad that non-participants from the get-go are using them as a first measure.

[Moses]

Supe, I get that. And I haven't seen a copy of the original suit the 9th court is ruling on, but this part of the opinion bothers me;

"There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children..."

The "go elsewhere" argument is hollow. The vast majority of parents can not afford private school and with two working parents, home schooling is not a real option. What we have is a classic double-bind; Education is compulsory, and parents will have no control in limiting their childs exposure to sexually related material.

I have few issues with schools determining academic content, but sexuality is a moral issue. Parents are the ultimate authority regarding their childs moral development. To suggest that the public schools have the right to usurp parental moral authority is the ultimate absurdity.

[Burnin' oil]

The opinion can be found at the court's web site http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/Opinions+by+date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=1.1 The case name is Fields v. Palmdale.

The Court's conclusion includes this statement:

We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select.

[Burnin' oil]

Utter B.S.

[jyl]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
On further reflection, I stand corrected on my stance concerning the court's decision. Those who have chimed in with a strict Constitutional interpretation of their decision are correct. Pushing this back to the local level is the right thing to do.

This does, of course, demand responsibility and action at the local level. This is sounding more and more like parents that were asleep at the wheel and only woke up after the fact. The time for their input was when the school board was asking for it, not after the fact pretending they never had the chance.

So what at first cut appears to be an evil, secretive school board being supported by a dastardly left-wing court falls appart upon closer examination. They are still our schools, our communities, to get involved with and shape. Those who choose not to might want to reconsider raising hell after the fact. The courts are there to help us settle these disputes when all else fails. It's too bad that non-participants from the get-go are using them as a first measure.

We're unlikely to hear about the after-effects from this (not newsworthy) but I'm hopeful they will include: parents getting more involved in the school, replacement of some school board members, and this situation not being repeated next year.

[Rodeo]

Some of you are reading the holding that there is "no constitutional right" of parents to control curriculum to mean that parents have "no right" to control what there children are taught.

Parents have every right to control what their children are taught. In the voting booth, on the school committee, at the PTA, and in individual teacher conferences. Worse comes to worse, they can take the kid right out of school.

They just can't enforce their rights as a constitutional protection. If I want my child taught intelligent design, I have no constitutional right to demand that. I have a political right to fight for that, but if I loose, there is no recourse in the courts.

The strict constructionists among you, including the starter of this thread, should be pleased as punch with this holding.

[pbs911]

This issue juxtiposed with SF Prop H to ban firearms demonstates the hypocritical aspects and misunderstandings of California.

Prop H (gun ban) is specifically addressing the specific language within the 2nd amendment.

Fields v. Palmdale asks the court to create a new fundamental right that is not contained in the Constitution.

I understand the concerns, anger and disgust that this topic has generated. For those poeple, I hope it generates interest at the local level school board. Remember, the school board is elected by the people. It is, however, difficult to comprehend the mentality of the people who claim their Constitutional Rights are being infringed and at the same time denying deeply rooted Constitutional rights.

This foundation for bringing this caseon appeal is a joke. I hope the Respondents were awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal.

[Jeff Higgins]

Rodeo has pretty much nailed it.

[Superman]

In fact, I'll bet that the parents' existing rights here include the authority to keep the child in the school, but not expose them to the sex education courses or material or research/testing. I'd guess that if any parent went to a Principal and said "I'm comfortable having my child in your school generally, but not comfortable with the sex education and research. I will teach that at home. Please excuse my child from those courses." I'd bet the answer would be "okay."

[Rodeo]

Instead of "9th Circuit leftists" this thread should be entitled:

"9th Circuit Refuses to Legislate From the Bench!"

[Superman]

Hey, if real freedom were the issue here, or anywhere, you'd have wild-eyed liberals like me locking arms with conservative idiots like Mul (smily face goes here) to fight that.

[legion]

Originally posted by Rodeo
"9th Circuit Refuses to Legislate From the Bench!"

I must assume you are not familiar with their other decisions.