Certainly, there are ways in which Utah's judiciary could improve. For one thing, it could make the disciplinary process against judges more open and subject to scrutiny. And yes, occasionally some decisions from the bench may raise eyebrows, although none come readily to mind.

But the one thing the judiciary does not need is to become more political, nor to be more closely controlled by those who are. In order to best safeguard the rights of individuals, the judiciary must be as independent as possible from the other two branches of government.

Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, says he wants to sponsor a bill that would require all judges to stand for a new Senate confirmation vote when their terms are finished. His stated reason is to get rid of judges who make bad decisions. Each year, one of two of them "make a decision that makes no sense," he told this newspaper. He didn't give an example.

We don't doubt there are occasional decisions that some would find nonsensical, but that is often a matter subject to personal preference. However, if a judge consistently does poorly, or if he or she is found negligent or guilty of a crime, the judiciary itself conducts hearings and can hand down discipline. This is done through the Judicial Conduct Commission, which each year investigates hundreds of complaints. In recent years, two judges, 4th District Judge Ray Harding Jr. and 3rd District Juvenile Judge Joseph Anderson, were removed from the bench.

But if the Senate has to reconfirm judges, the fear is that those judges will be tempted to make decisions from the bench with an eye toward the political preferences of those in power.

Some states allow voters to elect judges, who then must stand for re-election when their terms expire. This takes the legislative and executive branches out of the equation, but it makes the bench extremely political. In Utah, judges stand for simple retention votes. If more than 50 percent of voters say yes, a judge is retained for another term.

That system has its own weaknesses. Without active opposition, judges virtually always are retained. Voters have little real information by which to decide.

Part of the answer is to require the Judicial Conduct Commission to be more open. Rather than reporting only when judges are disciplined, it should make all complaints and proceedings open to review. The Senate already can conduct impeachment trials if it sees the need. Allowing it a less formal way to summarily dismiss a judge would harm a delicate balance.