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.
- A beleaguered family — 12 in 4...
- In our opinion: Keep marriage questions
- John Florez: The people's voices don't count
- In our opinion: Six heroes for our values in...
- Letter: Distance from religion
- In our opinion: Police vs. protests — a...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Our year-end...
- Drew Clark: Ebola, cybersecurity and...
- Letter: Access to health care 42
- John Florez: The people's voices don't... 33
- In our opinion: Police vs. protests... 29
- Letter: Distance from religion 24
- Letter: Sharing culpability 22
- A. Scott Anderson: Peace on earth comes... 15
- In our opinion: Keep marriage questions 14
- Prisons bring much positive change 13