In point of fact, Cosimo de Medici was quoting something that I had said up-thread.
A reasonable judge would follow the law. The law in this instance is quite specific as to the legal standards that must be met with respect to proving an official foreign record, and to the litigant to whom that burden falls. If you want to the judge to ignore those standards in order to to reach a conclusion you would find more palatable, isn't that "crafting law from the bench" and completely antithetical to conservatives ideals of American jurisprudence?
Contrary to popular opinion, every judge that has ruled in these cases (with some of them being Republican appointees to the bench) has followed the law, to the letter - including the judge in this case.
You throw that term "the law" around alot. What law? Which Congress passed it? Where is it to be found in the United States Code?
Yes, the USC, specifically Rules of Courts, authorizes the Courts to make rules, but rules are not the law. I'd bet that there are "exception" rules too. ... In fact I found one.
These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
Denying plaintiffs all access to the only things that would meet the standards of evidence and allow them to prove their case, can hardly be called "just".