I find the Human Rights Campaign's ad hominem attack on Gene Schaerr to be odd, to say the least. The implication that he is violating his oath as an attorney to "uphold the constitution" because he advocates a different view of the Constitution than does Fred Sainz is ludicrous. Please note, this is on an issue where there is no definitive precedent and upon which the Supreme Court issued a stay.
It would be just as easy to say that Sainz is the one who is trying to subvert the amendment clause of the Constitution because he advocates amendment by judges, in the guise of "interpretation," by judicial sophistry and logic chopping.
Furthermore, I suspect that the 10th Circuit judges would find it amusing to think that a mere advocate could "impose" his views, religious or otherwise, upon them.
I've been a member of the bar association, though not in Utah, for over 50 years. In the "old days" such an attack would have been regarded as unprofessional, at the least.
- Politicians being awkward at Halloween
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: The burden and...
- Jay Evensen: Should Utah be in the Central...
- What will Obama's legacy be?
- My View: Children need mother and father
- In our opinion: Protecting the church from...
- Jay Evensen: IRS abuses continue —...
- Letter: Public education