But sometimes you have to wonder.
A week ago, the state's top legal minds issued a ruling in the soap opera court battle between two former lesbian partners, Cheryl Barlow and Keri Jones. Barlow and Jones have been at odds for more than three years, fighting over a 5-year-old girl they decided to have together - back when Barlow considered herself a lesbian and Jones was faithful.
Like most broken relationships, this split got personal. Barlow wanted to cut off access to the child she gave birth to; Jones tried to maintain contact. In the end, Utah's justices ruled against the estranged partner/erstwhile parent and for the biological mother. Taking a strict view of Utah's statutes, the justices concluded an old common law principle would not allow them to give Jones the right to seek visitation. Just one, Chief Justice Christine Durham, disagreed.
With liberal use of "we're not judicial activists" statements, the justices released their opinion - 10 days before the end of the 2007 Legislature. The timing coincides with Capitol Hill debate of a bill aimed at blocking gay couples from legally defining their families.
When they got copies of the ruling, lawmakers rejoiced and pulled out their highlighters. Before killing the bill on the Senate floor last week, they crowed, quoting the justices' repeated disclaimers that only the Legislature sets policy. Fruit Heights Republican Sen. Greg Bell couldn't use enough superlatives: excellent, marvelous, delightful.
As Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka said, "That ruling couldn't have come at a better time."
It all seems one grand coincidence. Last year, lawmakers were debating the same legislation while awaiting a Supreme Court decision. It took exactly another 12 months to write. Six months ago, they probably would have reached the same conclusion. So why release it just in time to make lawmakers happy?
There have been other serendipitously released rulings. In the early 1990s, Salt Lake City leaders were sued over their practice of saying prayers before their meetings. After impatient legislators talked of amending the State Constitution to allow such religious speech, the court issued its own tortured ruling to that effect in 1993 - one month before lawmakers were scheduled to debate the amendment again.
"Suddenly, there's no longer a need for a constitutional amendment," said Brian Barnard, who represented the plaintiffs in that case.
Judges, of course, take great offense at any implication they are influenced or cowed by the other branches of government.
At the same time, Utah's justices meet on a regular basis with the governor. It's not required, but the judges started the tradition as a way to smooth the relationship.
And legislators have a unique ability to make judges' lives more difficult by cutting budgets. This year, Durham asked lawmakers to raise state judges' pay by 11 percent. At the same time, West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars started pushing legislation to require all judges to jump through additional hoops. If that bill passes, judicial retention will be debated the rest of this year.
The idea that the justices would be completely unaffected by the chatter on Capitol Hill is naive.
With lawmakers declining to debate the issues raised by Jones v. Barlow this year, the court ruling leaves the state's nontraditional families in limbo.
Barlow and Jones did everything they could to define their relationship. The women were joined in a Vermont civil union. They filed court papers making Jones the girl's guardian. None of that mattered in the end. Only Durham argued that Jones had been a "de facto parent" and deserved the right to sue to see the child she helped raise.
Since the ruling, Jones' attorney, Lauren Barros, has been called by other terrified clients - stepparents and grandparents and gay parents. "It's just a mess," Barros says.
Whether the justices meant to or not, their ruling will be seen as political - by lawmakers, Barlow and Jones and anyone raising children they aren't related to.
walsh@sltrib.com
