Reader comments
Judge's nomination rejected

Page:
1
2
Next >

RC | 2:33 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

If his judicial temperament was "praised" by Waddoups and Butters, why did they vote against his nomination?

Jay | 2:55 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

This guy is an activist judge. Good to stop any progress upward.

temperment? | 3:45 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

I can't believe Chris Buttars chose not to confirm the judge because of the judge's temperment. Wasn't it Buttars' temperment that got him into so much trouble last year? Unbelievable.

Comments continue below

To RC | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

They "criticized" his temperament. That is why they voted against him.

MOMS | 4:11 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

You see, the Judicial Commission is run by Democrats. The Legislature is run by Republicans. Does that help?

But, on the merits, Utah could do better than this judge. Just my uninformed, biased, silly little opinion.

amanda | 4:26 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

I think that it was a travsity that Judge Hilder was not confirmed. By accounts of the vast majority of lawyers and litigants who have appeared before him, he was a good, fair minded judge.
The senate's actions here will have nothing but negative effects for the future. First, this shows that senators will champion the uninformed cause of the minority and will disregard the majority if they feel threatened enough. Second, these confirmation hearings have dissuaded a number of qualified attorneys and judges from seeking appointment. They know now that everything they have done will be not only be scrutinized (as it should be), but will be misconstrued and blatantly misrepresented and that very few senators have will look into the actual facts of what occurred. Third, this deals a great blow to judicial independence. Judges are supposed to operate independent of the other branches of government because, unlike the legislature, they are not suppose to be subject the changing whims of the public. Finally, we all miss out by not having Judge Hilder on the appellate bench. He is an intelligent, thoughtful, fair judges and no one was better qualified than he.

SL Attorney | 4:31 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

Unbelievable. Judge Hilder is one of the finest people now sitting on the bench. Chris Buttars and his ilk oought to be ashamed. His judicial temperment is exceptional. I have never heard anyone complain of improper temperment. Again, unbelievable.

Smart Lawyer | 4:33 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

I am one of the highest paid lawyers in the state. I have impeccable credentials. I appear in our state and federal courts every day. This "no" vote on Judge Hilder simply shows that the public is uninformed and the legislature is uninformed about how our courts work and function. Judge Hilder is "the" single best judge on our state court trial bench. Now, I fear we may get an inferior candidate, simply to please a bunch of fools who know nothing about the law, and who enjoy making angry a wonderful judge. It simply illustrates that Utah is indeed a backwater full of hillbilly legislators.

Ridiculous | 4:43 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

You speak with anyone who has ever had the opportunity of being in Judge Hilder's courtroom and you will find universal praise for judicial tempermant. Apparently our Senate does not appreciate such qualifications, but instead nitpick tough decisions that a judge has to make daily in order to use those decisions against him. It is a travesty of far reaching affects. One wonders if a judge such as Judge Hilder could not make it through the Senate, what other judge possibly could?? All we will now have are lawyers from sterile, insulated law firms who have never had to make a tough legal decision as our future appellate judges. Lovely.

Buttoups | 4:47 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

If Buttars and Waddoups voted against him, it is highly likely that Hilder is intelligent, fair-minded, even-tempered and highly qualified.

One can only wonder what dim-witted, reactionary, blowhard will end up on the appeals court.

MOMS | 4:52 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

That post by "Smart Lawyer," the highly paid, impeccable one, really helps. It changed my mind immediately.

Afraid of Hilder? | 5:04 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

Lyle Hilliard would have voted against him, but privately said that he feared retribution. Hilder is a bright judge, but does not have the right temperament. There are much brighter, much better candidates. Hilder did have, however, the full court press forced by the pressure from the liberal bar association leadership. We pay dues so that they can lobby for their own benefit. Hilder would have been a bad choice.

Hold on, now! | 5:26 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

Maybe we ought to pay more attention to Messrs. Buttars and Waddoups. If anyone knows anything about intemperance, it's those two!

annoyed | 5:29 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

By the way, what is Buttars doing on the Judicial Commission anyway? He should have been kicked off permanently after he improperly sent a letter to Judge Pullan about one of his decisions

Two points | 5:36 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

First, to the commenter who said what judge could possibly be confirmed under this system, try all of the others. This is the first one in recent memory not to be concerned. Second, I don't know Judge Hilder's record, etc, and won't comment on whether he should have been confirmed, but the Senate doesn't exist to rubber-stamp these appointments. I, for one, am glad that the Senate at least tries to vet the judges that come before it, especially since a judge, once confirmed, is tough to get out almost no matter how bad because the voters get virtually worthless information on retention candidates (see, e.g. Glasmann)

Sad Utahn | 5:42 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

Unbelievable is right!! Another horrible decision by Buttars. This situation is so unfortunate- he shouldn't be in a position to make this kind of decision. The Utahn's who voted for Buttars should be ashamed.

too bad | 5:55 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

This is an unfortunate situation. Judge Hilder is a good judge.

Well | 5:58 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

if the liberals are for him then I'm against him. If he is an activist judge then that takes the power from the people and puts it into the hands of non-elected, non-legislative-power-holding people who should not have that power. I'm glad for this process, and the Senators do understand this issue.

Does ... | 6:28 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

anyone else find it wholly inappropriate that Hilder's divorce apparently played a role in his rejection. I'm appalled that they would even address someone's marital status in what amounts to a job interview. Am I alone in this?

ImforButtars | 6:43 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

About time we had a guy with guts in government. Liberal Judges ruling that the University of Utah is a sovereign entity above the law of the State is nonsense...they are chartered by the state. Go Buttars!

Where's the True Representation? | 6:44 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

How sad that our state senators would reject such an outstanding candidate. And how sad that people like Chris Buttars get reelected! When will state senators represent the people of Utah and not just the Eagle Forum.

Dad | 7:19 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

I am not surprised so many lawyers liked him, they have made big money in this system. Buttars, despite his faults, has a stellar record on supporting kids, particularly at risk kids, like the kind caught in the middle of ugly custody battles. Judge Hilder is not so stellar in this area-testimony was given to prove that at the first hearing. Good for Senator Buttars, someone stood up for the kids and not the lawyers!

Liberal? | 7:24 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

Liberal and activist - that's all I have to hear and I'm glad he's out. I lost millions in a suit with a liberal judge and attorney at the helm - it changed my life - so I personally can do without another activist judge. I'm not complaining just because I lost - but case law was 100% on my side and the judge didn't care - or worse, didn't take the time to know - just venting.

ImforButtars: A fool | 7:26 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

ImforButtars probably never attended college, let alone law school, and thus has no idea what he is talking about. Can someone who actually read Judge Hilder's opinion in the University of Utah case be critical of the opinion? Doubtful. To all of those non-lawyers who know nothing of the law, please refrain from giving opinions about things you know nothing about.

State law says | 7:27 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

no political entity [i.e. U of U] can make a rule about firearms without a state law expressly giving them that right. There was no express state law allowing the U or any other public school to prohibit lawful concealed weapons. It was very clear to the Jordan and Granite school district lawyers, so they changed their rules to allow lawful concealed weapons on campus. Judge Hilder ignored this very clear provision of Utah law in ruling in favor of the U. It's not baseless to call such conduct "legislating from the bench."

uncannygunman | 9:25 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

Sad, but not totally unexpected. I think conservative Utah lawmakers are just lashing out, reacting to the undisputed fact that Democrats have essentially taken over the national government. Let's hope they've gotten it out of their system, or it could make for a long legislative session.

Incidentally, if I were a university professor, I would post a "no guns" sign on my door. I wouldn't frisk people as they came in, but folks who chose to ignore the sign better keep things concealed or I'd be securing that weapon for my safety. And I doubt they'd like it.

re: smart lawyer | 9:43 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

I think you did a good job proving the point that canning Hilder was the right decision.

RGG | 9:53 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

The legislature has the right to vote down Hilder. They can do so because of 1 of 1,000s of decisions he has entered. But they should have the guts to say that is the reason. His judicial temperament is rated the highest every year. He gives people a fair trial. As a trial judge he has no chance to be activist. So don't hide behind statments that are wrong. Just say he decided against the legislature in one decison so he loses. If you don't like that vote them out. Do not take cheap shots at the man himself, he is good person & better judge. Only a coward denies the true reasons he voted him down.

Re: 7:26 post | 9:59 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

I wish "someone could actually read Judge Hilder's opinion in the U of U gun case." Part of the problem is that he rendered an ORAL decision ONLY, without explanation of the facts, law or logic leading to his decision.

Kind of tough to argue with his resons when they were never explained. Being the Judge, he can get away with doing that in cases. However, that certainly makes it fair game for critics to question the reasons he ruled in an inexplicable way.

He compounded this by recusing himself in a huff from any further consideration of the case, and his unexplained decision was finally overturned by the Utah Supreme Court.

This was an open and shut case that and the U's contentions should have been thrown out to start with, not upheld, let alone upheld with absolutely NO explanation.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt that he is an activist judge.

Kudos to the Senators for doing their duty in the Judicial Confirmation process.

If the elite, highly paid lawyers don't like this hick state, and redneck legislators, they are free to move to Kalifornia or Massachusetts where they will feel more at home.

activist | 10:00 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

Just mention the word "activist" and "judge" in the same sentence and our legislators and public will immediately be up in arms; bring out the pitch forks and torches. Any judge, liberal, conservative, green, blue, moderate, can be labeled activist at any point in their time on the bench. If they don't follow precedent with exactness, they are activist and any judge is will bend activist if it is convenient to his philosophy or the facts before him/her. Being 'activist' shouldn't immediately disqualify a judicial candidate.

concerned | 10:03 p.m. Nov. 19, 2008

Reading all of this and seeing it play out has been very sad. Let's call a spade a spade. Hilder is a popular, well liked judge then in 2003 he gets a controversial case involving guns and makes a ruling, not based on the second amendment, but on contract provisions between employer employee, and points out how the recently passed law could be strengthened by the legislature. The next year they correct the law. Fast forward to now. Governor Huntsman, with an 80% approval rating, really likes Hilder and nominates him to the next highest court. The gun groups sense a chance for payback and tell all the Senators to hold on to their britches 'cause we are coming in loaded and ready to shoot down the nomination. That causes fear among Senators, conservative Rs who don't want to offend gun owners. So what should be one consideration, the gun case, becomes the whole kit and kaboodle. Thirteen years on the bench, thousands of rulings, hundreds of trials, high approval ratings, and he offended one group and scared 16 Senators who don't want to stand up to gun groups. They came up with "arguments" to cast aspersions, nice touch.

cliear | 1:36 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

Judge Hilder was fair to the Attorneys, but despised Pro Se Litigants. He was the most Gender Biased Judge I have ever seen. My case he presided over included bribery of a custody evaluator, Perjury, Fraud, False Abuse Aligations by CPS and many other situations that a Judge should do something about. He did Nothing! The state is better off without him in its appellate courts.

awesomeron | 2:22 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

You must protect Gun Rights a All Costs. If you give Anti Gun Folks an Inch they will take a Mile. Do not let the Anti Gun Camel get his head in the tent.

playing republican | 5:33 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

When will people of this state realize that Huntsman is really a Democrat at heart?

Well Done! | 6:14 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

UT Senate shows the way. Activist judges destroy democracy and deserve to be rejected. Also, the temper tantrums are dangerous from a judge. Judos to the UT Senate!

Davis County citizen speaks | 6:27 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

Although from reading the article, it seems Robert is an intelligent and otherwise fine judge, I agree with the Utah Senate.

This man put law abiding citizens at the University of Utah at risk, by saying that Utahs gun law didn't mean what it said.

I am not entirely against judicial overiding of laws, in some situations circumstances come up that the law makers didn't anticipate when writing the law, and adhering strictly to the text of the law would be highly unjust.

But this was not such a case. Not only is it good public policy to allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in public places, it is obvious that the lawmakers were aware of this.

Sorry Judge, though you may otherwise be a fine judge, ... when it comes to guns, a constitutional right, you fell short and because of this it is right that you not be given more power than you already have.

AJ | 6:57 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

"Smart Lawyer" should chane his name to "Humble Not Self-absorbed Lawyer". I doubt the commentor knows any more about the law than the 'backwater, hillbilly legislators' he decries. And isn't that just what we need--the opinion of soul-less lawyers to select our judges? PLEEEASE! Aren't you lawyers already doing enough to destroy our country?

Rule of law, not men | 7:00 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

Congrats to war profiteer Charles Hardy and his band of brownshirted thugs for continuing the Utah Republican Party's tradition of anti-intellectualism in defeating Hilder's nomination.

Politicizing the judiciary does not lend itself to attracting the kind of neutral arbiter of disputes any claimant should want presiding in a court.

Anyone familiar with Hilder would find a characterization of his temperament as "out-of-control" just silly.

The inmates have truly taken over the asylum.

Twotanks | 7:07 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

I don't understand why you Americans think you need the right to carry concealed guns. It really is ridiculous in a 21st century society. The only people who should be carrying hand guns in a civilian context are the police. Other than for normal hunting and sporting activities, there can be no excuse for assault rifles or the carrying of concealed weapons. The wild west was two centuries ago. Time to grow up and appoint people on their merits and not because of your warped opinions.

John | 7:32 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

By in large most attorneys are anti gun folks.
Given the support of the smartest lawyer in the state, it might be fair to say he is an ambulance chaser. That said the gun owners brought pressure on their ...(now catch this Mr Smartest attorney)
representatives, through a process called Democracy.
Heck I'm suprised they even listened, but occasionally even they get it right.
I do however think the question on whether or not he was divorced were out of the norm, some of those folks on the hill are way to full of themselves.
Judges should follow the law, not legislate from the bench.

Anonymous | 7:38 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

Being highly rated by the attorneys...and recommended by the Democrats, should reject him out of hand. And a judge with a temper? Where does an old guy on the bench come up with a temper? Probably more revealing than we know.

Milo P Otis | 7:40 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

Next election when the question is asked: "Shall we retain so and so as Judge?" Vote no!!!! Let them get real jobs in the private sector.

Come on people, most don't even know who the judges are.

Clean the slate.

re: Smart Lawyer | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

If you have to tell everyone how smart you are and how highly paid you are, It is proof that you are a fool. 85% of the public have a bad opinion of Lawyers and "smart lawyer" cant wait to brag about how he is such a great lawyer. Smart Lawyer, you and Hilder may be able to tell everyone what page and case law can get a child molester off on, but you both seem to lack common sense.

RE: Twotanks | 7:49 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

The right to bear arms is NOT about hunting or the wild west. It is about a personal right to have personal protection and to have the ability overthrow out of control governments. It is an affirmation of a GOD GIVEN right.

New2Reality | 8:28 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

What is an "activist judge?" I hear and read about it frequently, but I don't understand the term. Don't judges rule by the word of law and the information presented to them by opposing sides? Aren't they trained by years and years of erudition to apply the rule of law despite a possibly misinformed public and/or legislature? Don't judges keep the legislative and executive branches in check by following the word of law? I'm sure those calling Hilder an activist judge have studied the case law behind his decisions. What is an activist judge? I'm confused.

Mc | 8:30 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

I sat on a jury in Judge Hilder's courtroom a few years ago. The trial took over a week. It was an awesome experience to see our judicial system at work and Judge Hilder was what I would call the perfect example of judicial temperment and respect for all involved. He really impressed this conservative who does not like "judicial activism." I don't know about all the other cases he has presided over, but I will always vote for him based on my personal experience.

lgu | 8:36 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

Hey Chris Butters. You showed your lack of knowledge again. Since when do judges "really make the law"?
Read up on the responsibilities of the legislative and judicial branches before you go shooting your mout off, AGAIN. Please learn not to be such an embarassment to our state. Quit pushing your own agenda and look to your own back yard before your castigate anyone else.

BYU Law Student | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

Milo P Otis - I'm pretty sure a highly qualified judge would be able to get a "real job in the private sector." Any law firm in the state would love to have Judge Hilder working for them.

This is a sad time for democracy in Utah. The will of the majority (see the retention vote a few weeks ago) was not considered and instead a small special interest minority group was able to control the Senate. The Senators turned this into a partisan issue even though it's not. "The Democrats support him. That must mean he's bad." Although I guess that follows the way most people in this state think, so maybe the Senators really are representative of the people.

Boy I'm glad | 9:15 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. Everyone hates judges until they have to appear in front of one. Utah's legislature, and most of the commenters here, have displayed their ignorance in their words and actions. Makes me glad I don't live in your reactionary ultra-conservative state. Now, it's a race to see who can condemn me first.

re BYU Law Student | 8:45 a.m | 9:16 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008

"This is a sad time for democracy in Utah. instead a small special interest minority group was able to control the Senate".

From what I have read, this man is a good man and an otherwise good judge.

However I beg to differ with you. The people who feel that the right to keep and bare arms is important is not a special interest group. and certainly not a small one if it were one.

The right to keep and bare arms, is just as important as the right to free speech, free press and free religion, perhaps moreso, because without it, all other rights are on potentially shaky ground.

The right to defend oneself and to bare arms is a constitutional right, let me paraphrase a famous LDS leader.

"No other success on the bench, can compensate for failure to uphold the constitution of the United States of America".

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.