The Supreme Court decision on the He case recently came down. Firstly, it was a beautiful decision. Well written and well reasoned. It was critical of the trial court appropriately with being disrespectful or undermining their authority. I’ve read a lot of opinions where the Court of Appeal s especially seemed to go to extreme lengths to avoid doing so and thereby let unfortunate practices slip. A criticism of a trial judge isn’t the end of the world and Judges are still human. Assuming, they desire to Improve I don’t see why any Judge should take offense, given the magnitude of the issues and the power granted anyone should be able to see; themselves, departing from the ideal on occasion.

                While it is easy to say that the rights of blood parents should not be primarily controlling that’s easy to take for granted. That legal protection is a recognition of the importance of family. Take that away and it will become less meaningful over time. Law is a reflection of a society and reflects back into it.

                I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the original decision as lacking in sensitivity as to different cultures. Also, that such criticism is clearly unfounded because Judge Childers has a long history of fair and unbiased judging and is indisputably one of the most highly respected Judges in Shelby County. Having read the decision I must admit there was a clear lack of understanding for different cultures. Being a young white male, as opposed to most Caucasian lawyers who seem to be old and white, I know that prejudices are most frequently unconscious. I know from my family that prejudice lessens through generations. The oldest is very aware, the next knows it is wrong but denies it both to others and to themselves, and the third either overcomes the disability or continues the process of overcoming it. All of which is to say taking a sensitivity class isn’t the end of the world and shouldn’t reflect poorly on someone. 

   I also noted that the President of the Memphis Bar came out in the commercial appeal and defended Judge Childers as being prompt after the other now retired Chancellor took forever. That was true but was apparently oblivious to what was actually being written as to the actual criticism.