Skip to main content

View Diary: Remember the Soldier a Republican Audience Booed? He Endures Another Indignity in Ohio. (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They should have gone with another name. (6+ / 0-)

    Oh, wait. It wouldn't have done any good because they're not straight...

    The Name Change courtroom vid is outrageous. What a waste of taxpayer's money and the judge should be ashamed for being too much of a coward to make an immediate ruling. Hopefully I'll be forced to sing a different tune when he rules in favor of the very handsome married couple.

    Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

    by jayden on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:52:15 AM PDT

    •  Don't be too hard on the judge.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, lostboyjim, Ahianne

      ....without knowing what he's going to rule and how his opinion supports his ruling. For all we know, this judge might issue a great opinion justifying a decision in favor of the name change.

      Until the hearing was completed, the judge couldn't have known what sort of factual record he would have to work with in rendering his decision. By refusing to offer convenient lies to obtain approval of their name change applications based upon one of the usual, routine justifications, this couple really made it impossible for the judge to grant their request from the bench without taking the matter under advisement so he could deliver a written opinion in support of his decision on the applications.

      Like it or not, there are controversial legal issues here -- the judge would truly have looked like he was "legislating from the bench" were he to have simply granted the applications summarily. Maybe the court will be able to come up with an interpretation of Ohio's name change statute that will support these applications without getting into constitutional questions; maybe he will decide that he has to confront the Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit issues that these applications present that all would have to concede are controversial. I don't know -- maybe the judge is a flaming bigot who will deny the applications -- but it's premature and unjust to criticize him for declining to act summarily and choosing to issue a written decision

      Judges owe the parties to litigation and the public clear and transparent explanations of why the law requires the rulings they make, particularly on contentious issues. I, for one, don't want judges making decisions based simply upon their own personal views of what's the morally right thing to do, even when those views are the same as mine.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site