Justices shouldn't be at legislators' whim

Can the Utah Legislature bully state court judges into ruling certain ways on high profile cases?

At first glance, most people would say no to this question.

First off, legislators wouldn't try to do this — for they are basically good public servants and wouldn't cross that ethical line.

Secondly, the judges would not allow such a thing to happen, even if wrong-headed legislators tried to do it.

And while I agree such a heavy-footed attempt rarely happens. I don't believe it is totally out of the question, either.

Now comes state Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who is drafting a bill for the 2007 Legislature that Buttars says is aimed at making judges who issue "terrible decisions" more accountable.

Buttars sees a two-prong approach.

Currently, the Utah Constitution says that the governor nominates people to be judges and the state Senate confirms or rejects them. After a judge's initial term of three years, he stands for retention, and if voters approve of his job by 50 percent plus one, he gets a six-year term on the bench. Justices on the Utah Supreme Court serve 10-year terms before they face voters.

Buttars says that when a judge's term is up, he should come back through the Senate confirmation process. In other words, senators could deny the judge another term, if he has made too many "terrible decisions."

Short of actually denying a judge another term, even if senators ultimately do reconfirm a judge, through the Senate's public hearing process some of the judge's shortcomings could be brought forward, says Buttars. These would be reported by the media, and the judge could — appropriately so in Buttars' mind — lose his retention election.

All told, Buttars thinks his ideas will ultimately strengthen Utah's judiciary, make judges more accountable for really flawed rulings and lead the judicial branch of government to better service and repute.

Put aside the constitutional questions to Buttars' bill — Utah's Constitution doesn't provide for any reconfirmations of judges by the Senate — and concerns over the senator's bill boils down to this: Who decides what is a "terrible decision?"

Currently, for bench judges that is either the Court of Appeals or the Utah Supreme Court. Upon appeal, justices review cases, and if they find fault in application of the law or other problems, they overturn the decision.