<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court Denies Mandamus in the FLDS Case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/court-denies-mandamus-in-the-flds-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/court-denies-mandamus-in-the-flds-case/</link>
	<description>Legal Issues Before the Texas Supreme Court</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:23:30 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Stone - Peterborough, England</title>
		<link>http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/court-denies-mandamus-in-the-flds-case/comment-page-1/#comment-376</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Stone - Peterborough, England</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 12:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotxblog.com/?p=206#comment-376</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Looks like the Courts - or at leas the higher ones - behaved better than either side expected.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;From what I&#039;ve seen, apologists of the FLDS were convinced the whole thing was a &quot;stich-up&quot;, and the Courts would just rubber-stamp the authorities&#039; action. OTOH, I get the impression that the Department and its sympathisers hoped and rather expected that, because it was about child welfare, and involved a very unpopular sect with a lot of distasteful notions, said Courts would overlook any legal irregularities &quot;for the kids&#039;  sake&quot;, and go along with CPS&#039; actions.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What neither seem to have anticipated was what they actually got - a decision which just applied the law &quot;by the book&quot;, without regard to the unpopularity (deserved or otherwise) of the individuals or groups involved.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;All in all, a good day for the legal system. The Appellate and Supreme Courts, at least, seem to have acted creditably.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like the Courts &#8211; or at leas the higher ones &#8211; behaved better than either side expected.</p>

<p>From what I&#8217;ve seen, apologists of the FLDS were convinced the whole thing was a &#8220;stich-up&#8221;, and the Courts would just rubber-stamp the authorities&#8217; action. OTOH, I get the impression that the Department and its sympathisers hoped and rather expected that, because it was about child welfare, and involved a very unpopular sect with a lot of distasteful notions, said Courts would overlook any legal irregularities &#8220;for the kids&#8217;  sake&#8221;, and go along with CPS&#8217; actions.</p>

<p>What neither seem to have anticipated was what they actually got &#8211; a decision which just applied the law &#8220;by the book&#8221;, without regard to the unpopularity (deserved or otherwise) of the individuals or groups involved.</p>

<p>All in all, a good day for the legal system. The Appellate and Supreme Courts, at least, seem to have acted creditably.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
