But you just did!

I would suggest also disabling comments on this entry, if you really want to avoid being nutjob-bait.

Not blogging when you don't have the facts? Coward.

Who is this "us"? Have you taken to the royal "we:"?

I'm looking forward to hearing which topics you will not be blogging in the future.

Even if you don't know what facts will ultimately be determined, you can still have an opinion about whether the judge acted properly based on the evidence presented.

I agree totally with Professor Kerr's meta-point. There's simply a fundamental divide between people who look at the FLDS and say "that group's practices are scary" and people who look at Texas' efforts to break up an insular homeschooling religious group with distinctive practices and say "that government's tactics are scary". It's hard to reach any sort of consensus, even on first principles.

Dilan Esper wrote at 4.29.2008 5:39pm:

... There's simply a fundamental divide between people who look at the FLDS and say "that group's practices are scary" and people who look at Texas' efforts to break up an insular homeschooling religious group with distinctive practices and say "that government's tactics are scary". It's hard to reach any sort of consensus, even on first principles.

Here's my first principle, at least for this kind of case. It's empirical: Any injustice, unfairness, unconstitutional or bad law, that we the people permit government to use against the most despicable and frightening people, can be used and inevitably will be used against the most innocent and benign people.

I think that most can agree with that to some degree. It's the basic reasoning for supporting most rights.

No one is denying that child molestation should be stopped, OrinKerr... that is a strawman. People are disagreeing with the METHODS by which it may have been stopped, and the weather the EVIDENCE available at the time justified the actions.

No one is denying that child molestation should be stopped, OrinKerr... that is a strawman. People are disagreeing with the METHODS by which it may have been stopped, and the weather the EVIDENCE available at the time justified the actions.

No wonder those same people question the METHODS the Bush Administration's has employed towards accused terrorists and whether the EVIDENCE available at the time justified the actions.

This post sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, commenters will demand to know why Orin hasn't blogged on some other Matter of Earhtshaking Importance (MEI), or at least explained his obstinate refusal to blog on that MEI, as he has done in this post with respect to the FLDS. Then Orin will appear in the comment thread, good-natured fellow that he is, to patiently explain why his explanation of his non-blogging of the FLDS issue does not oblige him to justify his non-blogging of any other MEI. Then commenters will argue about whether Orin's explanation about the giving and non-giving of explanations of his non-blogging is tenable in light of the relative importance of various MEIs, with some commenters questioning Orin's integrity, others questioning his libertarian bona fides, and still others telling everyone else to shut up and/or admit they are stupid, hypocritical lefties/wingnuts with nothing to add to the discussion. Eventually, Orin will be forced to resort to sarcasm and/or closing the thread, and the meta-issues will remain unresolved to resurface in future posts or non-posts on other MEIs.

Dilan Esper says;

There's simply a fundamental divide between people who look at the FLDS and say "that group's practices are scary" and people who look at Texas' efforts to break up an insular homeschooling religious group with distinctive practices and say "that government's tactics are scary".

Damn, I must be schizophrenic (or however you spell it) because I agree with both of those sentences. Do I need to be shrunk????

Hattio, I don't think it's schizo. I believe that the FLDS is structured in a way that promotes the continuing abuse of children (explusion for the boys, sham marriage for the girls).

As far as the government, I'm deferring to their better judgment for the time being in the belief that they will be vindicated at a fair and full trial on the merits. Such a trial would restore my faith in the process of the system and the production of serious evidence by the state would reaffirm my faith in their actions.

If they come up emptyhanded or the trial ends up being a sham, I will have to reevaluate the level of deference due to CPS but, for the time being, I'm going to stick with the good-faith argument.

"strindent"? Damn my fat fingers!

OrinKerr wrote at 4.29.2008 6:10pm:

Fub,

I'm curious, what's your answer to Buf, the anti-Fub, who writes the following:

Here's my first principle, at least for this kind of case. It's empirical: Any child molestation, or massive scale abuse of minors, that can be stopped by the authorities pursuant to court orders and judicial review should be so stopped.

I think that most can agree with that to some degree. It's the basic reasoning for having criminal laws in the first place.

Of course, that's not to see Buf is right -- just that Fub and Buf probably should appreciate the others' perspective.

Professor Kerr,

I am honored that you would pose a question to me. I am also shocked and surprised that my vastly smarter evil twin, Buf, would contact you. Buf rarely contacts anyone outside his secretive inner circle of associates. He has kept that low profile ever since 1958 when, as an enfant terrible on the Washington scene he advised Mr. Adams and Mr. Goldfine about a vicuna coat. He did remain active behind the scenes, though. His clients later included Mr. Baker, Mr. Nixon and his staff, Mr. Lance, several senators involved in S&L regulation, Mr. Poindexter, Mr. Secord, and Mr. North. Of course, he remained obsessed with secrecy. When some Hollywood moguls approached him a few years ago to make a movie about his pre-Washington career advising professional sports team owners, he turned them down flat. So "Buf the Umpire Payer" was never filmed.

Yet Buf contacted you. The internet is a very strange place. Are you sure it wasn't just some dog?

But I digress. I cannot deny the statement you cite is from Buf. It bears his earmarks. He has a penchant for carefully constructing slightly skewed and not quite apposite analogies, which irregularities often go undetected without close reading and observation. That is but one means by which he seduces his patrons.

In this case, Buf's misbegotten analogy invites his audience to logical error. The salient feature of my original principle is the fair and constitutional enforcement of just laws. Buf's analogy, however, invites the conclusion that fairness in enforcement of just laws is tantamount to no enforcement, or no laws at all. Thus he seduces his audience to make the error of the excluded middle. He invites them to conclude "Of course government must enforce laws, even unjust laws, and even by unjust means."

But, I would never "answer" Buf, as he is unlikely to be persuaded by my feeble logical arguments. I would, though, advise those who find themselves seduced into thinking that ethical, constitutional and fair enforcement of just laws is tantamount to not enforcing laws or not having laws, that they should rethink their conclusion carefully.

I would further submit that any populace who cannot make that distinction will find itself as bereft of rights and justice as Buf's clients were bereft of ethics.

I thank you for passing along Buf's statement, and I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily.

LM 4.30.2008 4:36pm:

Apart from the question of constitutionality, you beg the question of what's ethical, fair enforcement and what's a just law. At least Buf gives us some specific guidance about what he has in mind.

A fair point.

First, my sense of what is wrong with the FLDS raid is not the substantive laws on age of majority, rape, bigamy, and the like which may be operative in the case. I think such laws are generally constitutional, although disagreements exist among many whether their particular elements are wise.

What I, and I believe many others, think unjust about the FDLS raids are essentially procedural issues -- a warrant based on an apparently feigned "good faith" belief that an anonymous caller was truthfully reporting an observed fact; CPS internal procedures that remove all children from all families and dwellings, based upon one unreliable report of abuse of one child in one family and dwelling, and the like.

If crimes were actually being committed, there are ample means to bring the particular perpetrators to justice without resorting to arresting everybody in sight and taking their children away.

My principle, stated more concretely, is that if such procedures are acceptable against the unpopular FDLS religion, then nothing prevents government from using the same procedures to round up all Catholics and take their children away, based upon one anonymous report that one priest abused one child. Every Catholic would be jailed pending investigation of whether he delivered his children to the Church for molestation by priests.

I do not oppose, and in fact endorse, prosecuting the particular individuals for the particular crimes, based upon actual probable cause that the individuals committed those crimes.

Buf implicitly confounds questioning dangerously bad procedure with opposition to the substantive laws.