Is it the duty of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of matters of law brought before it? Should they be free to make their decisions without any interference from the other two branches of government? Is it proper, then, for the president of the United States, regardless of any political party, to put strong influence and pressure upon the justices? Isn't President Obama out of line to announce and promulgate a campaign to sway the decision of the court regarding their deliberations on the constitutionality of changing the definition of traditional marriage? Would not this principle of non-interference also be true in the future?
Don S. Robertson
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a conservative
- In our opinion: Fabricated Rolling Stone...
- Mike Noel: Utah leads out on win-win solution...
- Letter: Costly benefits
- In our opinion: Disrupted by email and the...
- Letter: Wrong tax approach
- John Florez: America's strength is its...
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp...
- Ralph Hancock: Religious freedom and... 75
- Letter: Wrong wage approach 47
- Letter: No more hungry kids 41
- Kathleen Parker: Hillary Clinton's... 40
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a... 37
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp... 34
- Letter: Unemployment compensation 33
- Letter: Intimate caucus system 27