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.
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious...
- The complicated political views of...
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have voted for
- In our opinion: Airport expansion reflects...
- In our opinion: Use market forces and not...
- In our opinion: History will remember our...
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and the...
- Letter: Breeding hate
- In our opinion: U.S. Supreme Court... 104
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 63
- My view: Amnesty towards border... 56
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 53
- In our opinion: History will remember... 46
- Letter: Society values 45
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 43
- Letter: Breeding hate 40