Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Moliere]

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/tel...b&r_by=9749436

Do not spend $2 million of our taxpayer dollars to fight a losing battle against marriage equality. Take that money and feed the homeless, stock the food banks, clothe the poor and do something to improve the lives of your fellow man.

Apparently the liberals are not immune to using guilt to persuade.....

[Topper]

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/tel...b&r_by=9749436



Apparently the liberals are not immune to using guilt to persuade.....

Or imagine this, lower taxes?

[Moliere]

Or imagine this, lower taxes?

That wasn't point.

[All-American]

Law is just an instrument utilized by society. Practitioners of it can do so nobly, but the law itself is nothing particularly noble or ignoble.

I view this more along the lines of utilitarianism, norms and relative values.

I've got more respect for the rule of law than you, then.

[Non Sequitur]

Scary thought. Judges should not be bound by law but only my their sense of what is right. Therefore, why not convict a rapist with insufficient evidence against him because the judge is aware of inadmissible evidence? Or the judge just feels the right thing to to is to convict a man who may be innocent. Who cares what the constitution says? Lets just do what is right, as a judge sees it. Surely he is more able to determine what is right than everybody else. Why should anyone else's or even a majority of people or the elected officials determine what is right? We've sure been wasting a lot of time electing people when we could have just been appointing a few judges to make these tough decisions for us all along.

I don't ignore the importance of procedure. It's necessary, but it's frustrating because so much of legal wrangling is about letting different interests get their way for as long as they can, until eventually enough reasonable people say enough and reason is restored.

[imanihonjin]

I don't ignore the importance of procedure. It's necessary, but it's frustrating because so much of legal wrangling is about letting different interests get their way for as long as they can, until eventually enough reasonable people say enough and reason is restored.

That cuts both ways though. The hope is that by having a procedure in which judges operate within that we can minimize the effect. Deviation causes uncertainty, which in turn will undermine the efficacy of the whole system.

[Topper]

I don't ignore the importance of procedure. It's necessary, but it's frustrating because so much of legal wrangling is about letting different interests get their way for as long as they can, until eventually enough reasonable people say enough and reason is restored.

Procedure and substance both matter. American jurisprudence has long taught us how important procedure is.

Focus upon criminal procedure stopped the police abuses of beating confessions, entrapment and other governmental abuses.
It requires for example the government prosecutor to be forced to prove a case, not just state "everybody knows the defendant is guilty."

In the absence of a fair procedure, you give way to "show trials". Procedure matters.

[Maximus]

We aren't on the same page but maybe in the same chapter. I don't find his ruling "activist" and I don't think he's inventing a new Constitutional right. I think he should have granted a stay pending further review but have no issues with him not doing that as I don't think he's harming anything (I'm fully aware I'm biased here on the stay issue). In some regards I dread this whole thing since my family is visiting from Utah at the end of January and I'm sure I'm going to have to hear about this a million times over.

Judges are not supposed to decide what is "right". Or do you want an american version of the morality police? If you want to redefine the function of the judicial system then come up with a new constitution. Whether SSM should be legal is irrelevant.

[Topper]

Judges are not supposed to decide what is "right". Or do you want an american version of the morality police? If you want to redefine the function of the judicial system then come up with a new constitution. Whether SSM should be legal is irrelevant.

Judges decide the law based on their understanding of judicial principles in light of their experience. I don't equate Judge Shelby's decision as deciding what is right but rather he simply interpreted the principles as to what made sense to him. Perhaps the 10th will overturn and it will head to the US Supreme Court. The system of review allows for correction where one judge runs rampant over the established precedent.

[Jacob]

Judges decide the law based on their understanding of judicial principles in light of their experience. I don't equate Judge Shelby's decision as deciding what is right but rather he simply interpreted the principles as to what made sense to him. Perhaps the 10th will overturn and it will head to the US Supreme Court. The system of review allows for correction where one judge runs rampant over the established precedent.

The wrong way to do it is to have a pre-determined outcome and come up with some reasoning to justify it. That's what I believe Mr. Shelby did, disgracefully.

[Topper]

The wrong way to do it is to have a pre-determined outcome and come up with some reasoning to justify it. That's what I believe Mr. Shelby did, disgracefully.

I am very open to the concept of strict constructionism, but do you really believe judges are blind as to what the result is they wish to achieve?

I served as a judicial clerk, have relatives serving as judges and justices, and know many judges personally. It just doesn't work that way. In reality, most judges evaluate the facts to determine what they are in an impartial manner if you have a good judge, try to determine if there is settled law or whether the law is changing and see how they would like to decide in light of the facts and prevailing law, or how a reasonable judge could see the law evolving. But the facts drive the law, not the other way around usually.

[imanihonjin]

I am very open to the concept of strict constructionism, but do you really believe judges are blind as to what the result is they wish to achieve?

I served as a judicial clerk, have relatives serving as judges and justices, and know many judges personally. It just doesn't work that way. In reality, most judges evaluate the facts to determine what they are in an impartial manner if you have a good judge, try to determine if there is settled law or whether the law is changing and see how they would like to decide in light of the facts and prevailing law, or how a reasonable judge could see the law evolving. But the facts drive the law, not the other way around usually.

I clerked as well and none of the judges that I interacted with nor the judge for whom I worked approached it that way. They tried, as much as was possible, to act as an umpire and call the balls and strikes without defining what the strike zone should or should not be. As far as I could tell, the way they "would like to decide" the case was is a way that conformed with the law. Not all judges are this way and that it what is scary about judicial review. You get unelected judges who are able to make sweeping determinations without recourse (spare me the lectures about how great this is for judicial autonomy, I get it and understand the trade offs); i.e., Roe v. Wade.

[Jacob]

It is estimated that it will allegedly cost the state of Utah $2 million to defend its constitution in court after the recent ruling. A few comments:

1. What? Ridiculous. Hire outside counsel. All that is needed is someone to argue the case 2-3 times in court. No discovery etc. Hire a competent outside firm to defend for $500k.

2. The cost is allegedly so high because they are hiring outside counsel to help. I agree with hiring outside counsel as AGs are generally poor oral advocates. But seriously? $2m? 2 competent lawyers could do this job well.

3. Of course it is worth $2m to defend if that's what it costs. We are talking about defending the constitution here.

[Topper]

I clerked as well and none of the judges that I interacted with nor the judge for whom I worked approached it that way. They tried, as much as was possible, to act as an umpire and call the balls and strikes without defining what the strike zone should or should not be. As far as I could tell, the way they "would like to decide" the case was is a way that conformed with the law. Not all judges are this way and that it what is scary about judicial review. You get unelected judges who are able to make sweeping determinations without recourse (spare me the lectures about how great this is for judicial autonomy, I get it and understand the trade offs); i.e., Roe v. Wade.

We have an immense federal judiciary, with an expansive set of perspectives, and a lot of diversity, a maverick who doesn't apply the rule of law will be overruled ad infinitum.

If you are saying, that none of the judges after impartially evaluating the facts as proven by counsel, had a gut reaction as to how they wanted to decide the case, then you did not understand or they did not disclose it.

It's a false notion that a judge simply evaluates facts and then blindly applies the law. There are times where the proof of facts will dictate a result in many cases, but we're not discussing one of those cases.

It's the middle ground cases where the predelections of the judge can determine the outcome. Most of my experience shows me many good judges try to judge the facts impartially. However, once they determine the facts, they apply the law based upon their preferences within certain parameters of interpretation.

"Scary"? Judicial review is what it is. It's a human endeavor not one by computers or machines. It adds the human element. I am sometimes surprised or disappointed by a decision and disagree with the result made, but realize politics, preferences and life differences often dictate judicial decisions.

[TripletDaddy]

3. Of course it is worth $2m to defend if that's what it costs. We are talking about defending the constitution here.

We are actually just talking about your homophobia here.