I'm wondering where, if any place, people go on the Harry's Law forum to discuss the court rulings. Right now I guess it is in each individual episode, which is fine.
Two comments:
1) The ruling in Harry's auto case didn't make sense, as the judge said "it violates the First Amendment, the commerce clause." Ah, the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause are two different sections of the US Constitution. The Commerce Clause existed BEFORE the First Amendment, as it is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The reason it exists in the Constitution and isn't an amendment is because commerce was one of the failing aspects of the Articles of Confederation, which was what the US used before our current Constitution. The "Articles" were what we used between the time we won our freedom from England and we realized we needed a stronger central government than the "Articles" provided or allowed.
The First Amendment deals with the rights of the people, while the Constitution - proper - deals with how the government is to function. Many of the people at the time wanted the rights of the people spelled out in the original Constitutions but Thomas Jefferson made the case that the "base" document should be about organization and several people proposed the amendments as a solution. People would support the Constitutions as long as Congress and the states passed rights based amendments ASAP. It is why they went through so quickly.
2) The ruling on the child.
Ah, this one is tough, but honestly, I feel the judge made the wrong call. Her ruling will only encourage additional kidnappings and in fact other courts could use her ruling as the basis for keeping children away from their biological parents. The judge said as a Mother she would go after her child for as long as it takes, but she didn't take the situation far enough ....
Say someone took the judges 6 month old child and then took the child to another country, put it up for adoption, and gave it to a well off couple in that country. The judge after 4 or 5 year tracks down her child and wants the child back. As she would want to take the child back to the USA, after all her job is a judge / lawyer in the USA. Yet, the judge in that case could even point to this case saying it is for the benefit of the child that (s)he not leave the only country / family (s)he known. The local judge points out the child would be going back to the USA instead of growing up in the country (s)he knows.
You say the ruling needs to be in the best interest of the child, but what would all the other children it can and will affect? I does NOTHING to discourage kidnapers and I'm sure some kidnapers / adoption agency would look upon it as validation of their behavior. If on the other hand the American family had to give up the child, they could use it to make life difficult for the adoption agency and China. The PR and legal rulings would discourage sending kidnapped children to the USA.
Yes, it would be painful for the child but let me put it another way: What if the child had been an American child kidnapped from a hospital say during its first few days of life? The kidnapper either keeps the kid OR sells the child to an adoption mill. Four to 5 years later they find the child, should the child go back to their original family or stay with the kidnappers or those who ended up with a bought / sold child.
Anyway, it's a tough call, but my recommendation to the writers is to bring this story back at some point as an appeal and this time have Harry also on the case. Look at the broader context.
Honestly, I think it is OK to explore complex issue over multiple issue and/or with different clients (to see different aspects). One thought might be to look an American kidnapping for profit (sold to an adoption agency .....), have appeals, etc.
