Such a decision, subject to full substantive review by an appellate court, should prudently preserve the status quo until that review is complete. But given the complex legal and practical consequences associated with this decision, it was utterly irresponsible for Judge Shelby to not simultaneously stay the enforcement of his decision pending the benefit of appellate review.Įfforts to overturn the constitution of a state must involve greater care and deference than pre-trial proceedings. Results-driven creativity from trial courts is nothing new. Acting on a motion for summary judgment, the decision rests on one judge’s creative interpretation of precedent. Friday’s decision was made without the benefit of a trial. But in that contest, one would hope for fair play. How marriage is defined in American society is admittedly one of the great legal and political contests of our day. Shelby overstepped judicial bounds, ignored the weight of settled precedent and insulted Utah’s electorate by striking down Amendment 3 to Utah’s Constitution, the provision that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The essence of judicial tyranny is when a single, unelected federal judge declares the laws and constitution of an entire state null and void with an opinion clothed in the barest of legal precedent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |