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.
- About Utah: They got exactly what they wished...
- Letter: Shredded Constitution
- My view: TPA trade agreement counts as...
- Robert J. Samuelson: Are policies undertaken...
- Letter: Land for the young people
- In our opinion: After court's marriage...
- In our opinion: APUSH in the wrong direction?...
- Michael and Jenet Erickson: 7 inconsistencies...
- Letter: Shredded Constitution 56
- Letter: Sovereign flag 43
- In our opinion: After court's marriage... 42
- Michael and Jenet Erickson: 7... 38
- In our opinion: In wake of ACA ruling,... 29
- George F. Will: Chief Justice John... 22
- Sistas in Zion: Reaction to racial... 18
- Robert J. Samuelson: Are policies... 18