|Utah Governor Gary Herbert|
First, an appeal would require a good attorney. When Laura DuPaix defended the state in the Holm case, she blubberingly argued with Chief Justice Christine Durham that Rodney Holm was in fact married to Ruth Stubbs, even though there was no legal marriage in place between them. If the state cannot find anyone smarter than her or Jerrold Jensen to plead before the 10th Circuit, it should quit while it is behind.
Secondly, an appeal would, in this case, be a bizarre legal anomaly, because the gist of it would be as follows:
"Dear 10th Circuit justices, Judge Clark Waddoups recently decriminalized polygamy in Utah. Utah vehemently disagrees with the ruling and wants the polyga-bigamy statute reaffirmed. These evil, criminal polygamist outlaws must not be permitted in our State. We have said before that we have ABSOLUTELY no intention of EVER prosecuting any of them, we just desperately want you to restore the law so that we can go back to calling them criminals and so that we can feel better."
Thirdly, Waddoups spent many pages of his published Brown ruling demonstrating how racist and reprehensible the Reynolds decision was. For the 10th Circuit to reverse him in Brown, it will have to come out in full support of Reynolds, an opinion which should have died 100 years ago along with Davis v. Beason (1890) ( - denied Mormons' voting rights) and Late Corp. (also 1890) - in which the court said:
Those two odious rulings faded into ignominy without ever needing to be overturned.