I love FoxNews (or rather, the Factor) legal analyses
Because they are (or at least seems to be to my layman eyes) constitutional—and socially conservative. Here's the latest one:
He's absolutely right. There is nothing we can do about the case that was already closed—he doesn't spell it out, but we all know that our constitution prohibits double jeopardy. A criminal, no matter how heinous cannot be tried twice for the same crime—the only way a judge or jury can rule on the same issue is on the appeal by the convicted, which obviously isn't going to happen here.
And he makes a very good case what can be done within the confines of the Constitution. Although this "civil confinement" seems like it could be a slippery slope, but well, this case seems like a clear-cut case—and it's not an indefinite confinement, it's only 18-months, and there will be a hearing to justify it, not just be done on the whims of some lawyer or administrator.
This was a very ... pleasant legal analysis to listen to: unlike liberals who would be all for re-trying the case over and over with different juries and with different venues until they get the "right" result, if it's a case they care about (which obviously won't be a child rape case—maybe it'll be different if someone shot a child with a handgun). And his concluding remarks, "I will not weep if something happens to David Earls," is, well, amusing (and, like everything else in the segment, I agree—I personally won't do anything to people like this guy, but I see no reason to grieve if someone thought, well, Oklahoma legal system didn't do enough).
This segment doesn't seem to be so clear cut.
I guess in the general terms, I agree with Megyn Kelly's sentiment—I don't want a state that meddles in affairs of private citizens—in which no clear crime has been committed, not one of those blanket laws like "disturbing the peace" or something. But, when children (i.e. legal minors) are involved, well, I do think the rules change a little. The government has a duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves—those who, by one reason or another, have no, and cannot have, self-determination and self-ownership. The children (and unborn babies, in my opinion) are the largest constituents of this group.
When a parent clearly (and beyond all reasonable doubt) endangers a child, I think the government—especially the local government, has the power and duty to intervene. This can, of course be a slippery slope again, as we know from the notorious reputation of some child protective services, but some cases are clear enough that it's beyond this type of argument—and this probably is one of them.
What would happen if this analysis/opinion were done by a liberal? Why, they'd sue McDonald's, because obviously neither the child nor the mother is responsible for the actions of either of them—but McDonald's executives are!