I was impressed that the main thesis ("Judicial Tyranny," Dec. 21) involved talk of actual civics and laws, rather than the stale dialogue about morality and how babies are made. His main complaint was that the ruling was decided as a result of summary judgement, which he attributes to the judge's activism.
However, the author must have been aware of two things. Firstly, the state of Utah submitted a motion for summary judgement as did the petitioners. Both sides asked for it, because there was no disputation the facts. Secondly, the state also submitted a motion that the case be dismissed because there was "no substantial federal issue" citing a 1971 case as precedent.
I find it not only ironic but hypocritical to complain about the judge and the fairness of the trial when the state didn't even want a trial in the first place, and asked for an expedited one.
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Dan Liljenquist: The economic impact of...
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the...
- In our opinion: Federal contracting executive...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- Capitalism and the common good: Fairness,...
- My view: Utah's Constitution requires state...
- Doug Robinson: Violence against women is...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 79
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 54
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 46
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- Join the discussion: Is feminism... 37
- My view: A global warming solution to... 36