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.
- Robert J. Samuelson: The Olympic sinkhole
- In our opinion: Finding – not forcing...
- Drew Clark: Will 2016 be the breakout year...
- My view: The supergentrification of Sugar House
- Michael Gerson: The Dalai Lama's path to peace
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The 'bathroom...
- My view: Patriotic Millionaires urges Hatch...
- Charles Krauthammer: Donald, Hillary and the...
- In our opinion: Finding – not... 81
- Letter: Nothing is 'free' 53
- Richard Davis: Who needs to go to the... 32
- Those intolerable TSA security lines 22
- Jay Evensen: Like it or not, politics... 22
- On Second Thought: A lighthearted look... 19
- Letter: Citizens have a duty 19
- In our opinion: A social media enabled... 18