| | |
|
JiadaiLinSecondPaper 4 - 20 Apr 2010 - Main.JiadaiLin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
-- By JiadaiLin - 16 Apr 2010 | | | Introduction | |
<
< | Justice Scalia begins the opinion of Michael H. v. Gerald with “The facts of this case are, we must hope, extraordinary.” In Constitutional Law, we read this case as one of several that serves as an excellent springboard for discussions about due process and individual rights. In the final moments of class on that particular morning, the Professor mentioned that this case actually involves an incredibly unique set of facts that could be interesting to uncover in our own time. | >
> | Justice Scalia begins the opinion of Michael H. v. Gerald with “The facts of this case are, we must hope, extraordinary.” In Constitutional Law, we read this case as one of several that serves as an excellent springboard for discussions about due process and individual rights. In the final moments of class on that particular morning, Professor mentioned that this case actually involves an incredibly unique set of facts that could be interesting to uncover in our own time. | | | Professor was right. The edited down opinion in the casebook is actually the skeleton of a complicated and lengthy tale of four people. Perhaps this particular fact pattern appears unique because it involves a supermodel mother and her daughter, her wealthy French husband, an affair and subsequent bicoastal stints in Los Angeles, New York and the Caribbean Islands. Certainly not ordinary facts, at first glance. At a second glance, however, the issues of the case, beneath the glamour and drama, are not uncommon at all. | | | I cannot help but think that unlike Justice Scalia hoped, the facts in Michael H. are not that extraordinary at all. Of course, the majority of children are not born to supermodels. But with the growing number of “unconventional” familial structures mentioned previously, it seems more and more necessary to put a focus on finding the most efficient system realistically possible to address parental rights. | |
<
< | I am fully aware that the issue is one that is extremely complicated and involves the lives and desires of many parties, all who have somewhat valid claims to the respective rights that they are arguing for. In the midst of it all, however, I underscore the fact that it is troubling that perhaps the right at the center of it all is the one that frequently is not voiced. This is not the time or place for me to propose any sort of solution, but merely to raise the question of how to quicken the time wasted in litigation and court proceedings so the actual right at stake is the focus of the debate. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | I am fully aware that the issue is one that is extremely complicated and involves the lives and desires of many parties, all who have somewhat valid claims to the respective rights that they are arguing for. In the midst of it all, however, I underscore the fact that it is troubling that perhaps the right at the center of it all is the one that frequently is not voiced. This is not the time or place for me to propose any sort of solution, but merely to raise the question of how to minimizes the time wasted in litigation and court proceedings so the actual right at stake is the focus of the debate. In the long run and on a philosophical level, it may be important to carve out a doctrinal system to address how to balance the different rights asserted. This, however, should not be emphasized at the expense of overlooking the childhood that may be affected most of all after the dust of the legal debate has settled. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |