Trying to keep the children's needs in mind in this divorce mess is "McCarthyism" or some Oregon Territorial chest-beating? Jim, I am quite confident that it is YOUR effort that would be considered by most Americans to be a lunatic fringe. Almost everyone thinks we should think of the kids first. You say it is "impermissible" to even consider them at ALL. That's insane.
Jim: "...stumble onto little slogans that capture the imagination of The People for a while."
Yeah, just a little passing phase. I'm sure it is just a "frenzy", like Elmo dolls. Wake up and smell the coffee in all 50 states' family law code and ALL caselaw. Are you nuts? This principle is the legal equivalent of tectonic bedrock. It is as immovable an object as it gets. If there is ONE principle that EVERY court in the land holds above all else, it is this one. Way to pick your battles.
Jim: "Raw democracy can be a horrible thing"
Democracy is GREAT unless you are trying to force-feed an austere unpopular dogma against 99% of the population. In your mind, totalitarianism looks pretty good.
Jim: "Our nation's Founders did the best they could by including a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution."
Have your "team" of Constitutional geniuses found the line about parents having no right to ask to have their children's needs taken into account on family court decisions? Have they figured out a way to scratch out the part about citizens having the right to have their day in court?
Jim: "Remember, it was the judiciary -- far more than the U.S. Congress, and even more than MLK -- that made the Civil Rights era in the United States."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meaningless, I guess, but what you are looking for DOES have caselaw precedent in the USSC: Dredd Scott. You are looking for a repeat of Dredd Scott in that you want the court to consider a class of human beings nothing more than a bag of meat and water - mere "property", not persons - with NO legal right to have their concerns considered by a court.
You also are counting on the court depriving all parents of any right to present their children's needs and you insist that the court tell itself that it may not even think about what children need in child placement.
What's you next trick?
Jim: "I believe it's going to take similar intellectual integrity and moral backbone from the judiciary to solve our problem."
There is not one shred of intellectual, legal, logical, palatable or moral backbone in your attacks against children.
Jim: "Once guys like Frank get a hold of a slogan like BIC"
That is YOUR slogan. I never even heard anyone discuss any controversy about considering children's needs until you created a term called "BIC doctrine". You like slogans, so I made one up just for you: the CP doctrine. The REAL problem in family court law is the ONE part of it that the court overplays: the CP doctrine. The court too rarely puts the child's interests into the equation because the CP doctrine forces them to pick a winner and a loser.
Jim: "We ... need our liberties protected"
We need to be protected from people like you, who advocate limitations on all rights (other than your own) and limitations on what a citizen may ask to be considered by the court. We all need to stand up against people like you who seek to take away our rights as Americans. Your idea of selective "freedom" is anything that benefits you.
You will NEVER take away a parent's right to have their say in court representing what they believe is their children's needs. Pigs will fly first.