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.
- 10 things you never knew about the FBI
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook for...
- Robert Bennett: Hamas and its financial...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Re-enactment...
- Letter: Policy disagreement
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have voted for
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 109
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 72
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 61
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 52
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 46
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 45
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- In our opinion: Use market forces and... 33