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.
- Everything you need to know about the...
- Jay Evensen: Is Provo really an impoverished...
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line...
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult...
- Letter: Utah's birthright
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach
- Letter: Protected lands
- Socratic observations — Politics are...
- Robert Bennett: Contrary to Krugman,... 60
- Letter: Learn the Constitution 52
- In our opinion: Explaining editorial... 44
- Letter: Utah's birthright 44
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line... 37
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult... 35
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach 34
- John Florez: Corporate or public... 31