Reader comments
Concerns arise over judge's defeat
95 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
Spoutoff | 11:11 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Just another display of Buttars and his improper and unethical attempt to
involve himself in the judiciary. Has everyone forgotten his letter to the Utah
County Judge (on senate letterhead) in which he chastised the Judge for the
ruling he made "against" a Buttars friend? Buttars, in effect, told
that Judge he would never have confirmed him if he knew how he would decide that
case. Buttars has said on more than one occasion that we need to get rid of all
the "activist" judges. I believe his definition of an activist judge
is a judge does not rule the way he (Buttars) wants him to.
Just another example of the people getting what they deserve. He never should have been re-elected after his the embarrassments to his party and the Senate.
But don't try to paint it for something that it isn't. Hilder was and is a good judge. Anyone disputing that should read the U of U case before commenting - you will see his ruling had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and was based on contract law principles.
Just another example of the people getting what they deserve. He never should have been re-elected after his the embarrassments to his party and the Senate.
But don't try to paint it for something that it isn't. Hilder was and is a good judge. Anyone disputing that should read the U of U case before commenting - you will see his ruling had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and was based on contract law principles.
TO: S&W .40 | 11:16 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
First of all, what a bad tag. The .45 was invented by a Utahn, for a Utahn to
prefer anything else is just wrong.
Second of all, yes elected officials in this case had a right to reject the judge. It was certainly within their right.
The problem most of us have is the motivations that they give for rejecting him.
The point of the article was that judges are scared they need to rule against their interpretation of law in order to be appointed.
The elected officials looked at more than they should have. They asked potentially illegal questions. Imagine if you were in a job interview with me, and I asked what the best cartridge was, and you said .40, and I said, I don't hire anybody who does not believe J.M. Browning's cartridge is the best.
You might get red faced, and demand equitable treatment, just like this judge did.
The truth is, the judge got asked questions that should never have been asked. I am sure if he had been prepared for the senator's illegal questions, he would have performed for them better.
They are the unethical ones, though. He did the best he could.
Second of all, yes elected officials in this case had a right to reject the judge. It was certainly within their right.
The problem most of us have is the motivations that they give for rejecting him.
The point of the article was that judges are scared they need to rule against their interpretation of law in order to be appointed.
The elected officials looked at more than they should have. They asked potentially illegal questions. Imagine if you were in a job interview with me, and I asked what the best cartridge was, and you said .40, and I said, I don't hire anybody who does not believe J.M. Browning's cartridge is the best.
You might get red faced, and demand equitable treatment, just like this judge did.
The truth is, the judge got asked questions that should never have been asked. I am sure if he had been prepared for the senator's illegal questions, he would have performed for them better.
They are the unethical ones, though. He did the best he could.
Comments continue below
Judicial Activism | 11:19 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Utah's Uniform law says, "All authority to regulate firearms shall be
reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates
responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity MAY
NOT enact or ENFORCE ANY ordinance, regulation, or RULE pertaining to
firearms."
The U is clearly a "state entity."
The legislature NEVER gave public schools or universities express authority to regulate or prohibit firearms. Lawyers for Jordan and Granite school On the other hand, Hilder ruled for the U without citing ANY state statute "specifically authorizing" the U to regulate firearms - very arguably judicial activism. Therefore, the Senate had grounds for its decision, plain and simple.
The U is clearly a "state entity."
The legislature NEVER gave public schools or universities express authority to regulate or prohibit firearms. Lawyers for Jordan and Granite school On the other hand, Hilder ruled for the U without citing ANY state statute "specifically authorizing" the U to regulate firearms - very arguably judicial activism. Therefore, the Senate had grounds for its decision, plain and simple.
How can you tell? | 11:23 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
With the state of the country such that judges want to advance political
positions (their own views or those of their associates), how can you tell if
you have a good person on not on the bench except by past performance?
Approval based on issues (and not politics) is still allowed in the U.S. and Utah constitutions, is it not?
I don't see anywhere in the law that legislative approval is a rubber stamp for every nomination that is made by a governor.
Approval based on issues (and not politics) is still allowed in the U.S. and Utah constitutions, is it not?
I don't see anywhere in the law that legislative approval is a rubber stamp for every nomination that is made by a governor.
Lowell Nelson, Highland | 11:29 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Had Judge Hilder confirmed a citizen's right to keep and bear arms--even at
the U--then the Senate would have confirmed him. His blatant disregard for the
right of the people to own and carry arms, as guaranteed by the Second
Amendment, earned him the rejection he got in the Senate. And ANY nominee who
fails to adhere to the Constitution deserves a similar fate.
DR Don | 11:36 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
"He just ruled that U of U had grounds to limit guns on campus. He made a
ruling based on law."
NO, he didn't and the Utah Supreme Court determined that he was wrong.
NO, he didn't and the Utah Supreme Court determined that he was wrong.
Hmm | 11:44 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
While you are all complaining one way or the other let's not forget the
total hypocrisy over Judge bork for the Supreme Court. What is happening in
Utah also happens with the Left in the USA. Nothing new...
This is Not a Democracy | 11:47 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
The United States is not a democracy; it's a constitutional republic, which
is very different. The constitution sets up a system of checks and balances
with three independent branches of government. The issue here is whether or not
our legislature adequately appreciates the wisdom of judicial independence.
Mr. Valentine is a lawyer and was a law school classmate of mine. He is by all accounts and my recollection a good one. Although on its face, this rejection of Judge Hilder bothers me, I do not believe that Mr. Valentine based his vote on political differences with Judge Hilder. I would be very surprised and disappointed to learn differently.
Mr. Valentine is a lawyer and was a law school classmate of mine. He is by all accounts and my recollection a good one. Although on its face, this rejection of Judge Hilder bothers me, I do not believe that Mr. Valentine based his vote on political differences with Judge Hilder. I would be very surprised and disappointed to learn differently.
Demeanor | 11:53 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
The Box Elder County First District Court is corupt
The Judge has a Prosecutor that does not protect the innocent first
Judge Ben Hadfield allows Civil Rights Violations being Comitted by the Box Elder Sheriffs Department
You don't hop into and out of Court
The Sheriffs should never bind the feet of people going to Court
The Judge is to stupid to sit on the BENCH
So many more problems in Box Elder County and the Judges
We have a Judicial Conduct Comission that refuses to act
Quite cleat this is a major problem
The Judges are just plain hateful and should not be allowed in public
This is about Law and Justice of which there is none in Box Elder County
The Judge has a Prosecutor that does not protect the innocent first
Judge Ben Hadfield allows Civil Rights Violations being Comitted by the Box Elder Sheriffs Department
You don't hop into and out of Court
The Sheriffs should never bind the feet of people going to Court
The Judge is to stupid to sit on the BENCH
So many more problems in Box Elder County and the Judges
We have a Judicial Conduct Comission that refuses to act
Quite cleat this is a major problem
The Judges are just plain hateful and should not be allowed in public
This is about Law and Justice of which there is none in Box Elder County
Comment | 11:54 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
I new Judge Hilder for a while, my judgement was I couldn't figure out how
this guy ever qualified to be a judge in the first place. Good Call.
To Not a Liberal | 11:06 | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
You're a liberal.
He had no right to lose temper | 12:08 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
It's odd how people assume that the legislators in question had motives
other then their concern about his misconduct during questioning. If a Judge
cannot behave himself in a civil manner towards legislators who we elect to
represent us for a entire duration of questioning then how can we expect that
Judge to ever faithfully uphold the laws that we pass.
The article clearly states that some "legislators, however, criticized the 3rd District judge for what they termed showing a hot temper and getting red-faced during closed-door questioning."
Why should we believe the Judge and not those who questioned him? If we can't trust representatives and Senator to weed out nuts who lose their temper during questioning then our judicial system will collapse from within.
I am a Democrat and I agree with Hilder's gun ruling and I disagree with most of the political positions of the majority of the Utah Legislature but this is a clear case of judicial misconduct during a hearing and that is unacceptable. It is one thing for a Judge to be civil in a courtroom where he is in charge and another to show hubris and arrogance in situations where he isn't.
The article clearly states that some "legislators, however, criticized the 3rd District judge for what they termed showing a hot temper and getting red-faced during closed-door questioning."
Why should we believe the Judge and not those who questioned him? If we can't trust representatives and Senator to weed out nuts who lose their temper during questioning then our judicial system will collapse from within.
I am a Democrat and I agree with Hilder's gun ruling and I disagree with most of the political positions of the majority of the Utah Legislature but this is a clear case of judicial misconduct during a hearing and that is unacceptable. It is one thing for a Judge to be civil in a courtroom where he is in charge and another to show hubris and arrogance in situations where he isn't.
Mad he wasn't on the Stand | 12:18 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Re: "TO: S&W .40,"
"You might get red faced, and demand equitable treatment, just like this judge did.
"The truth is, the judge got asked questions that should never have been asked. I am sure if he had been prepared for the senator's illegal questions, he would have performed for them better."
Legislators have a right to ask any questions they want during a legislative session and the precedent for our first amendment right to freedom of speech was a right of the British Parliament to freedom of speech in Parliament and to not be questioned for anything said during a session of Parliament. This is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in Art. I, Sec. 6 which states "and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
It's never illegal for legislators to say whatever they want in a legislative body and the only body that has authority to censure them is the House in question which has the authority to expel them or reprimand them or the people at election time. Also, the questions that were asked demonstrated Hilder's lack of self control when he isn't in charge.
"You might get red faced, and demand equitable treatment, just like this judge did.
"The truth is, the judge got asked questions that should never have been asked. I am sure if he had been prepared for the senator's illegal questions, he would have performed for them better."
Legislators have a right to ask any questions they want during a legislative session and the precedent for our first amendment right to freedom of speech was a right of the British Parliament to freedom of speech in Parliament and to not be questioned for anything said during a session of Parliament. This is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in Art. I, Sec. 6 which states "and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
It's never illegal for legislators to say whatever they want in a legislative body and the only body that has authority to censure them is the House in question which has the authority to expel them or reprimand them or the people at election time. Also, the questions that were asked demonstrated Hilder's lack of self control when he isn't in charge.
Legal community | 12:37 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
What bologna! I am a member of the legal community and I have not heard a peep
about this issue from any of my fellow attorneys. So the Senate was not a rubber
stamp for the governor? So what? They are not supposed to be. This is the first
non-confirmation in how many years? If Judge Hilder did get testy with the
committee then he deserves to be voted down. I don't know how many times I
have been angry with a judge for the things he has decided. Not once did I show
that anger in a courtroom (at least I hope not). That would have prejudiced my
client's position.
I also know John Valentine and I would be very surprised if he made a decision that was not very well thought out and honest.
This was a single blip on the screen. If it starts happening consistently then perhaps there is cause to worry. Otherwise, it is a tempest in a teapot.
I also know John Valentine and I would be very surprised if he made a decision that was not very well thought out and honest.
This was a single blip on the screen. If it starts happening consistently then perhaps there is cause to worry. Otherwise, it is a tempest in a teapot.
Hilder You are in contempt of me | 1:21 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Legal community,
It seems that Hilder expects different conduct from those who come before him then he is willing to give to our elected representatives. If an attorney or a defendant got red in the face (he admits to getting red in the face easily and says he inherits it from his father) while in a Courtroom a different outcome would have ensued and it most likely would have been a night in jail for the guilty party. Hilder should be glad that the worst he received for his actions was not being confirmed.
I don't know exactly how out of control Hilder was but its obvious that he was since he admits it and from the nature of the complaints against him I am inclined to believe that his actions may have been bordering on contempt of the legislature.
His recent comments to the press demonstrates that he doesn't see how he behaved as inappropriate which indicates an appalling level of arrogance. This is a man who is in charge of a courtroom but who can't handle it when he isn't the one in charge.
Did Hilder want to hold the Senators in contempt?
It seems that Hilder expects different conduct from those who come before him then he is willing to give to our elected representatives. If an attorney or a defendant got red in the face (he admits to getting red in the face easily and says he inherits it from his father) while in a Courtroom a different outcome would have ensued and it most likely would have been a night in jail for the guilty party. Hilder should be glad that the worst he received for his actions was not being confirmed.
I don't know exactly how out of control Hilder was but its obvious that he was since he admits it and from the nature of the complaints against him I am inclined to believe that his actions may have been bordering on contempt of the legislature.
His recent comments to the press demonstrates that he doesn't see how he behaved as inappropriate which indicates an appalling level of arrogance. This is a man who is in charge of a courtroom but who can't handle it when he isn't the one in charge.
Did Hilder want to hold the Senators in contempt?
Knowah | 1:25 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
When a man or woman is nominated to sit as a judge, all areas of their life do
matter. Where there is much counsel there is safety. Too often, these type of
appointments are for the wrong reasons. It helps to be circumspect in examining
and evaluating a person, position or principal that will impact others. Even
judges, while being questioned and evaluated, should be humble and submissive to
the process, not arrogant or heated. I'm delighted our democracy continues
to work!
Its the motivation that is wrong | 1:31 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
It is the motivation of the elected officials that is wrong.
They say that it is because the judge lost his temper. Then they say that he only got red faced when he was asked about which church he went to on Sunday.
Then they say that he did not rule according to law. Then they give the gun-rights lobby (NRA) version of which laws they say that he did not rule in accordance with.
The examples they give show that they are trying to make a point to judges: Dont rule according to the law. Rule how the gun-rights lobby sees the law, or you will be waiting in the unemployment line.
It is the motivation that bothers people. They had an agenda with this judge. That is what bothers people.
I am all for guns. Should they be on campus? Nope.
I am all for the legistlature vetting judges. Did they do it honestly and ethically in this case? Nope.
They didn't even give this guy a chance. Once he ruled according to conscience, and that bothered the gun-rights lobby, he had made his career decision.
Oh, in case you missed it, gun-rights lobbyists pay (donate) Utah politicians.
They say that it is because the judge lost his temper. Then they say that he only got red faced when he was asked about which church he went to on Sunday.
Then they say that he did not rule according to law. Then they give the gun-rights lobby (NRA) version of which laws they say that he did not rule in accordance with.
The examples they give show that they are trying to make a point to judges: Dont rule according to the law. Rule how the gun-rights lobby sees the law, or you will be waiting in the unemployment line.
It is the motivation that bothers people. They had an agenda with this judge. That is what bothers people.
I am all for guns. Should they be on campus? Nope.
I am all for the legistlature vetting judges. Did they do it honestly and ethically in this case? Nope.
They didn't even give this guy a chance. Once he ruled according to conscience, and that bothered the gun-rights lobby, he had made his career decision.
Oh, in case you missed it, gun-rights lobbyists pay (donate) Utah politicians.
A. Citizen | 1:36 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
I know that the senators got a lot of calls and emails as well as face to face
contact with citizens on this issue. Senators are not rubber stamps for the
governor or the those in the "legal profession" that consider
themselves to be superior to the general public. I say let it be a lesson to the
next judge that tries to create his own laws.
Just Maybe | 1:42 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
He was voted down because he is a jerk.
Mad he wasn't at 12:18 PM | 1:42 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Do legistlators have the right to ask any questions?
Yep.
Can they behave unethically, and stand accountable to no one?
Yep.
That is what occured here.
Nobody is arguing that they do not have the power to do and say whatever they want.
It is their motivations that reveal what unethical people they are.
If they were to come out and say "The gun-lobby gives me my paycheck, and puts my kids through private school, and they have told me that this guy cannot be a judge" Then at least they would be honest.
But to turn around and say "The guy lost his temper when we asked him what religion he has chosen, and whether his wife had cheated on him. So we cannot put him on the bench. Because he cannot control his temper."
No judges should be judges if that is the case. I'd bet some of you "NRA draw down" gun-nuts would have cleared leather if you were asked some of those questions.
That is totally unethical.
Then they say that they don't think he knows the law. Really, he probably does not know the NRA version of the law.
He was a good judge.
Yep.
Can they behave unethically, and stand accountable to no one?
Yep.
That is what occured here.
Nobody is arguing that they do not have the power to do and say whatever they want.
It is their motivations that reveal what unethical people they are.
If they were to come out and say "The gun-lobby gives me my paycheck, and puts my kids through private school, and they have told me that this guy cannot be a judge" Then at least they would be honest.
But to turn around and say "The guy lost his temper when we asked him what religion he has chosen, and whether his wife had cheated on him. So we cannot put him on the bench. Because he cannot control his temper."
No judges should be judges if that is the case. I'd bet some of you "NRA draw down" gun-nuts would have cleared leather if you were asked some of those questions.
That is totally unethical.
Then they say that they don't think he knows the law. Really, he probably does not know the NRA version of the law.
He was a good judge.
To: Legal Community at 12:37 | 1:47 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Here is something I found ammusing:
"I also know John Valentine and I would be very surprised if he made a decision that was not very well thought out and honest."
Yeah, and you are an impartial observer.
Yeah, right.
Sounds like you have got your man.
I am also a member of the legal community.
I understand the point of the article. We already know that members of the legistlature have tried to intimidate judges. We already know that.
The point of the article is that judges and those seeking to become judges will have to rule how these unethical elected officials tell them to rule.
That really bothers me.
These guys (including Buttars) are some of the most dishonest people I have ever heard of.
They should not be deciding who is ruling on Utah's laws. That whole concept of this good ol' boys club deciding how laws get interpreted just sounds odd to me.
"I also know John Valentine and I would be very surprised if he made a decision that was not very well thought out and honest."
Yeah, and you are an impartial observer.
Yeah, right.
Sounds like you have got your man.
I am also a member of the legal community.
I understand the point of the article. We already know that members of the legistlature have tried to intimidate judges. We already know that.
The point of the article is that judges and those seeking to become judges will have to rule how these unethical elected officials tell them to rule.
That really bothers me.
These guys (including Buttars) are some of the most dishonest people I have ever heard of.
They should not be deciding who is ruling on Utah's laws. That whole concept of this good ol' boys club deciding how laws get interpreted just sounds odd to me.
I would divorce him too | 1:57 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Knowah,
"When a man or woman is nominated to sit as a judge, all areas of their life do matter."
Every area of their personal life should be open to legislative scrutiny when their decisions affect the lives of men, women and children. Let's use a very extreme case. A prospective judge is looking a porn and specifically digital child pornography. Would we believe that it's a personal matter and not open for public scrutiny? Would we want him making decisions dealing with pedophiles?
How about a Judge who beats his wife and children or exercises unrighteous dominion over them? Would we want them making decisions in a domestic violence case?
"It helps to be circumspect in examining and evaluating a person, position or principal that will impact others. Even judges, while being questioned and evaluated, should be humble and submissive to the process, not arrogant or heated. I'm delighted our democracy continues to work!"
His being heated showed arrogance. Nothing about a Judge's life is off-limits since his decisions reach into every aspect of our lives. His decisions can even cost people their lives. Do we want a judge who gets angry easily making those decisions?
"When a man or woman is nominated to sit as a judge, all areas of their life do matter."
Every area of their personal life should be open to legislative scrutiny when their decisions affect the lives of men, women and children. Let's use a very extreme case. A prospective judge is looking a porn and specifically digital child pornography. Would we believe that it's a personal matter and not open for public scrutiny? Would we want him making decisions dealing with pedophiles?
How about a Judge who beats his wife and children or exercises unrighteous dominion over them? Would we want them making decisions in a domestic violence case?
"It helps to be circumspect in examining and evaluating a person, position or principal that will impact others. Even judges, while being questioned and evaluated, should be humble and submissive to the process, not arrogant or heated. I'm delighted our democracy continues to work!"
His being heated showed arrogance. Nothing about a Judge's life is off-limits since his decisions reach into every aspect of our lives. His decisions can even cost people their lives. Do we want a judge who gets angry easily making those decisions?
Robbie Hilder is a brat | 2:08 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
To "Mad he" at 1:42 p.m.,
"No judges should be judges if that is the case. I'd bet some of you "NRA draw down" gun-nuts would have cleared leather if you were asked some of those questions."
I wouldn't know since I'm liberal and do not support the NRA and I agree with Hilder's 2003 decision but the facts really don't matter to you do they?
This judge lost his temper in a legislative hearing yet he wants defendants and attorneys to remain calm when the prosecutor or the Judge asks them questions they don't feel are appropriate? Does Hilder asking a defendant a stupid question or overturning the proper motion of a defense attorney give them the right to treat this guy way he treated our elected representatives. If that is how he treats them how can we ever trust him to treat us with anymore respect when we come before him.
I'm sure he was upset that he couldn't bang his gavel and threaten to through the Senators in jail unless they stopped asking him such questions but they weren't in his courtroom. He was in theirs and he misbehaved.
"No judges should be judges if that is the case. I'd bet some of you "NRA draw down" gun-nuts would have cleared leather if you were asked some of those questions."
I wouldn't know since I'm liberal and do not support the NRA and I agree with Hilder's 2003 decision but the facts really don't matter to you do they?
This judge lost his temper in a legislative hearing yet he wants defendants and attorneys to remain calm when the prosecutor or the Judge asks them questions they don't feel are appropriate? Does Hilder asking a defendant a stupid question or overturning the proper motion of a defense attorney give them the right to treat this guy way he treated our elected representatives. If that is how he treats them how can we ever trust him to treat us with anymore respect when we come before him.
I'm sure he was upset that he couldn't bang his gavel and threaten to through the Senators in jail unless they stopped asking him such questions but they weren't in his courtroom. He was in theirs and he misbehaved.
Anonymous | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
"Valentine said he had initially supported Hilder, but he told the
governor's office he'd changed his mind after the nominee "was
very harsh with me.""
WAAH, WAAH. So he got testy with you Valentine, big deal. You're suppose to be above someone hurting your feelings. You are suppose to "judge" him based on his judicial record, not if he gets a little huffy at biased, hateful legislators who are judging him on his personal life instead of his judicial life. You and the others just proved its a good ol boys club. By the way, I called the senate office to find out why the vote listing is not on their website, the answer I received was "we didn't know where to link it to" so they instead decided not to allow the public access to it. Way to go!!
WAAH, WAAH. So he got testy with you Valentine, big deal. You're suppose to be above someone hurting your feelings. You are suppose to "judge" him based on his judicial record, not if he gets a little huffy at biased, hateful legislators who are judging him on his personal life instead of his judicial life. You and the others just proved its a good ol boys club. By the way, I called the senate office to find out why the vote listing is not on their website, the answer I received was "we didn't know where to link it to" so they instead decided not to allow the public access to it. Way to go!!
Robbie Hilder can't behave | 2:15 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Just Maybe,
"He was voted down because he is a jerk."
I believe that the reason he wasn't confirmed was because he couldn't control himself. A legislator who would confirm a Judge who loses his temper in a legislative hearing would be in dereliction of their duty to protect the public interest.
How people in authority behave when they aren't in charge of a situation is a true indicator of their true character. When you are the one in charge and can throw someone in jail you may believe you don't have to answer to anyone but when you react heatedly in a situation where you are on the other end of the questioning that demonstrates hypocrisy.
I don't doubt for a minute that if a witness treated Judge Hilder this way in his Courtroom that he would throw that witness in jail for contempt of court and he is lucky that the Senate didn't decide to hold him in contempt of the legislature. He admits to reacting and becoming red in the face and yet people are defending him because they agree with his views. That's wrong and I say that as a liberal.
"He was voted down because he is a jerk."
I believe that the reason he wasn't confirmed was because he couldn't control himself. A legislator who would confirm a Judge who loses his temper in a legislative hearing would be in dereliction of their duty to protect the public interest.
How people in authority behave when they aren't in charge of a situation is a true indicator of their true character. When you are the one in charge and can throw someone in jail you may believe you don't have to answer to anyone but when you react heatedly in a situation where you are on the other end of the questioning that demonstrates hypocrisy.
I don't doubt for a minute that if a witness treated Judge Hilder this way in his Courtroom that he would throw that witness in jail for contempt of court and he is lucky that the Senate didn't decide to hold him in contempt of the legislature. He admits to reacting and becoming red in the face and yet people are defending him because they agree with his views. That's wrong and I say that as a liberal.
To: Hilder is a brat at 2:08 | 2:39 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Did he ever act up in the courtroom? Nope. He was unanimously supported by
lawyers and judges.
Did he ever yell at anyone in his courtroom? Nope. Again, he had overwealming support in the legal community.
It was not until he was put in a situation that he has never put anybody else in that they were able to "break" him.
That is sad to me. How many of us could endure that kind of treatment?
He knew that he had followed the law.
He knoew that many of the questions he faced were illegal.
He got cornered, and got red faced, and made the elected officials feel intellectually inferior. As far as him losing his temper, who's story are you listening to?
The "black baby" group of legistlators are all saying that he lost his temper. Other elected officials complimented him on his professional demeanor in the face of idiocracy.
It looks like those who are trying to prove their point exaggerated his losing his temper. Did he lose his temper, or did he turn red faced. They change their story every time it comes up.
The truth is, he was a good judge. And an honest man.
Did he ever yell at anyone in his courtroom? Nope. Again, he had overwealming support in the legal community.
It was not until he was put in a situation that he has never put anybody else in that they were able to "break" him.
That is sad to me. How many of us could endure that kind of treatment?
He knew that he had followed the law.
He knoew that many of the questions he faced were illegal.
He got cornered, and got red faced, and made the elected officials feel intellectually inferior. As far as him losing his temper, who's story are you listening to?
The "black baby" group of legistlators are all saying that he lost his temper. Other elected officials complimented him on his professional demeanor in the face of idiocracy.
It looks like those who are trying to prove their point exaggerated his losing his temper. Did he lose his temper, or did he turn red faced. They change their story every time it comes up.
The truth is, he was a good judge. And an honest man.
Just maybe | 2:50 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
How do you like this comment:
"I believe that the reason he wasn't confirmed was because he couldn't control himself. A legislator who would confirm a Judge who loses his temper in a legislative hearing would be in dereliction of their duty to protect the public interest."
You have got to be kidding me.
They were acting in the public interest when they asked him his religious beliefs?
Really?
What public is served by those kinds of questions?
Just maybe they acted unethically. Just maybe they abused their power.
Just maybe.
"I believe that the reason he wasn't confirmed was because he couldn't control himself. A legislator who would confirm a Judge who loses his temper in a legislative hearing would be in dereliction of their duty to protect the public interest."
You have got to be kidding me.
They were acting in the public interest when they asked him his religious beliefs?
Really?
What public is served by those kinds of questions?
Just maybe they acted unethically. Just maybe they abused their power.
Just maybe.
Truth-Sayer | 3:27 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Hasn't anyone heard of separation of powers who think judge Hilder should
have been retained?
Judges are not supposed to be legislating from the bench---it's open contempt for the role of the state legislature and it's also making a mockery of the 2nd Amendment---the entire constitutional process for that matter!
When judges defy the law, they are subject to the law. The state legislature itself is subject to the federal constitution and should not be passing laws that infringe on a person's right to self defense.
State law has to reflect the federal Constitution; no state has a right to infringe on the federal Bill of Rights! If state law trumps the Bill of Rights, you have no rights and the Constitution of the United States is rendereed "null and void!"
Judge Hilder broke violated his oath of office to uphold state law and U.S. constitutional law, he has no business being a judge!
Judges are not supposed to be legislating from the bench---it's open contempt for the role of the state legislature and it's also making a mockery of the 2nd Amendment---the entire constitutional process for that matter!
When judges defy the law, they are subject to the law. The state legislature itself is subject to the federal constitution and should not be passing laws that infringe on a person's right to self defense.
State law has to reflect the federal Constitution; no state has a right to infringe on the federal Bill of Rights! If state law trumps the Bill of Rights, you have no rights and the Constitution of the United States is rendereed "null and void!"
Judge Hilder broke violated his oath of office to uphold state law and U.S. constitutional law, he has no business being a judge!
If he believed in Christ Wayment | 4:27 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
To: "Just maybe,"
"You have got to be kidding me."
No I am not kidding but you have got to be kidding. Your opinion is wrong and I know you aren't willing to admit that because you are self-centered but I'm sick and tired of the games.
"They were acting in the public interest when they asked him his religious beliefs?"
They had every right to ask him whatever they wanted in order to determine if his religious beliefs would influence his judicial decisions. So long as that is not the sole criteria for them making a decision on his confirmation they are well within their rights to determine what his religious beliefs were.
"What public is served by those kinds of questions?"
The public who is concerned by his treatment of Paul Wayment who committed suicided after he sentenced him to 30 days in jail over the death of his son who he had wandered off and froze to death. Hilder did this even though the prosecutors asked him not to give him any jail time. He murdered that man his religion probably played a role.
"Just maybe they abused their power."
Just maybe he killed someone.
"You have got to be kidding me."
No I am not kidding but you have got to be kidding. Your opinion is wrong and I know you aren't willing to admit that because you are self-centered but I'm sick and tired of the games.
"They were acting in the public interest when they asked him his religious beliefs?"
They had every right to ask him whatever they wanted in order to determine if his religious beliefs would influence his judicial decisions. So long as that is not the sole criteria for them making a decision on his confirmation they are well within their rights to determine what his religious beliefs were.
"What public is served by those kinds of questions?"
The public who is concerned by his treatment of Paul Wayment who committed suicided after he sentenced him to 30 days in jail over the death of his son who he had wandered off and froze to death. Hilder did this even though the prosecutors asked him not to give him any jail time. He murdered that man his religion probably played a role.
"Just maybe they abused their power."
Just maybe he killed someone.
If he believed at 4:27 | 5:41 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
"...Just maybe he killed someone."
That man who committed suicide left his own kid alone in a car in the mountains when he went hunting. Not exactly a father of the year nominee.
I am glad that you think that judges can be blamed for the actions of those who they sentence in their court. The "blame others for your own actions" is really weak thinking.
The judge did not murder Mr. Wayment. Mr. Wayment was horribly negligent. It is a sad story, to be sure, but if Mr. Wayment had been a man he would not have broken the law, and he would have not committed suicide. Suicide is the weak mans answer to problems.
The judge made a rulings based on the law. He was highly respected in the legal community. Lawyers who tried cases before him respected him. Other judges respected him.
Yes, he made difficult judgements based on the law. But to blame him for the actions of others is ridiculous.
Suicide is a very selfish act. The judges ruling was correct in every aspect. Many times judges look at what the prosecution recommends, and decides according to law.
He was a good judge.
That man who committed suicide left his own kid alone in a car in the mountains when he went hunting. Not exactly a father of the year nominee.
I am glad that you think that judges can be blamed for the actions of those who they sentence in their court. The "blame others for your own actions" is really weak thinking.
The judge did not murder Mr. Wayment. Mr. Wayment was horribly negligent. It is a sad story, to be sure, but if Mr. Wayment had been a man he would not have broken the law, and he would have not committed suicide. Suicide is the weak mans answer to problems.
The judge made a rulings based on the law. He was highly respected in the legal community. Lawyers who tried cases before him respected him. Other judges respected him.
Yes, he made difficult judgements based on the law. But to blame him for the actions of others is ridiculous.
Suicide is a very selfish act. The judges ruling was correct in every aspect. Many times judges look at what the prosecution recommends, and decides according to law.
He was a good judge.
If he believed in Chris Wayment | 5:52 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Holy moly.
You realise that suicide is a one-person activity, don't you?
I think you need to really evaluate the whole Wayment story.
Mr. Wayment left his toddler alone in a vehicle while he went hunting. The vehicle was in the middle of nowhere in the mountains. Mr. Wayment said that his child was asleep in a carseat. When Mr. Wayment got back to his vehicle, his child was gone.
A search was conducted, and the child was found. The child was deceased due to exposure.
Mr. Wayment was charged. As any adult in that situation would.
The judge ruled that Mr. Wayment would serve time. It was a ruling based on law. Imagine if the judge had been lenient. It would open the door for other cases of crimes against children. The judge took some heat for his ruling, but he is a man of integrity and honor and stood by his ruling.
Mr. Wayment killed himself. The judge did not do it. It was a selfish act. Wayment had made a mistake, but suicide is not the answer to any of lifes problems.
The judge made a hard decision. Good judges make hard decisions.
You realise that suicide is a one-person activity, don't you?
I think you need to really evaluate the whole Wayment story.
Mr. Wayment left his toddler alone in a vehicle while he went hunting. The vehicle was in the middle of nowhere in the mountains. Mr. Wayment said that his child was asleep in a carseat. When Mr. Wayment got back to his vehicle, his child was gone.
A search was conducted, and the child was found. The child was deceased due to exposure.
Mr. Wayment was charged. As any adult in that situation would.
The judge ruled that Mr. Wayment would serve time. It was a ruling based on law. Imagine if the judge had been lenient. It would open the door for other cases of crimes against children. The judge took some heat for his ruling, but he is a man of integrity and honor and stood by his ruling.
Mr. Wayment killed himself. The judge did not do it. It was a selfish act. Wayment had made a mistake, but suicide is not the answer to any of lifes problems.
The judge made a hard decision. Good judges make hard decisions.
Activist Judge | 5:54 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
walmart shopper you need to take that money you save from shopping at walmart
and spend some money buying and reading books on our form of government, then
maybe you can share that information with the rest of these people that keep
crying about "activist judges." really people I have said it before
and I will say it again. Push away the keyboard and picl up a book!Wal-Mart
voter you need to take that money you save from shopping at Wal-Mart and spend
some money buying and reading books on our form of government, then maybe you
can share that information with the rest of these people that keep crying about
"activist judges." really people I have said it before and I will say
it again. Push away the keyboard and pick up a book!
Attention Wal-Mart shoppers there is a sale on books on isle 5 please step down.
Attention Wal-Mart shoppers there is a sale on books on isle 5 please step down.
what goes around comes around | 6:15 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
This is just the treatment of Bork and Clarence Thomas coming home to roost at
the state level. Right or wrong - both sides have learned to play the same
political game. The only difference in Utah is that Republicans own the Senate.
Just be glad you don't have West Virginia's Supreme Court problems.
we had our chance | 7:34 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
We had our chance to vote the nerdislators out, and did not take the
opportunity. So, we (those who voted for the villains in question) get what we
ask for...legislators who care less for competence than their pet issues.
I hear Yosemite Sam is practicing law in Scipio and has interest in the job. What say we give him a buzz?
I hear Yosemite Sam is practicing law in Scipio and has interest in the job. What say we give him a buzz?
shecky | 7:54 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Sara: You are so right. I clearly remember no Republicans saying one single
word about Clinton's White House years.
Do you perchance remember the "impeachment"?
Do you perchance remember the "impeachment"?
goes around @ 6:15 p.m. | 8:04 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
No sir, it is NOT Bork and Thomas revisited. Unlike the state of Utah, the
Congress at the times those gentlemen were nominated for the US Supreme Court
was not dominated by a veto-proof majority of the same party as the executive.
The Utah legislature shows none of the common sense occasionally (if
infrequently) found in the US Senate.
I suppose that if you are a republican, you consider the treatment to be the same. From my perspective, reasonable doubts were raised about both Bork and Thomas (and Alito). One was confirmed, one was not. No reasonable doubts concerning jurisprudence have been raised about Judge Hilder. This was done for spite and nothing else.
I suppose that if you are a republican, you consider the treatment to be the same. From my perspective, reasonable doubts were raised about both Bork and Thomas (and Alito). One was confirmed, one was not. No reasonable doubts concerning jurisprudence have been raised about Judge Hilder. This was done for spite and nothing else.
Democracy @ 10:39 a.m. | 8:07 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
As a Democrat, I would like to point out to you that this is not a democracy. It
is a republic, which I would expect any good Republican sheep to know.
Good call by senate | 10:38 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Those claiming Hilder did not rule on guns are trying to dodge the issue.
Imagine a judge ruling that the UoU could impose an employment or student
"contract" that prohibited certain religious beliefs. NOBODY would
try to claim the judge simply ruled on contract. CLEARLY the 1st amendment
protections of religious freedom would be at play.
So too in the UoU gun ban case Judge Hilder ruled on guns while trying to dodge the issue. Indeed, since he refused to issue any written ruling giving the reasons for his decision, those who are now claiming he didn't address guns at all are just covering for him. He ignored Art 1, Sec 6 of the Utah State Constitution as well as 76-10-500 in which the legislature has specifically reserved all power to regulate guns to themselves.
Simply lesson to be learned here.
1-If you want to create laws, get elected to the legislature. But don't do it from the bench as a judge.
2-The UoU is NOT a sovereign entity immune from State law.
3-Like it or not, attacking RKBA is a CLM (career limiting move) in Utah politics. Learn that lesson.
So too in the UoU gun ban case Judge Hilder ruled on guns while trying to dodge the issue. Indeed, since he refused to issue any written ruling giving the reasons for his decision, those who are now claiming he didn't address guns at all are just covering for him. He ignored Art 1, Sec 6 of the Utah State Constitution as well as 76-10-500 in which the legislature has specifically reserved all power to regulate guns to themselves.
Simply lesson to be learned here.
1-If you want to create laws, get elected to the legislature. But don't do it from the bench as a judge.
2-The UoU is NOT a sovereign entity immune from State law.
3-Like it or not, attacking RKBA is a CLM (career limiting move) in Utah politics. Learn that lesson.
Hilder defeat | 10:42 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
To express concern over this outcome is to question the very role of the State
Senate. Are we to presume that the governor NEVER makes a mistake in who he
appoints to the courts?
If Hilder is the first judge in recent memory to be defeated in the Senate it is a sign of his stubbornness or tenacity as there have been several other appointees in recent years who have quietly withdrawn themselves from consideration when it became clear they were going to face serious opposition or even defeat.
For better or worse, Hilder elected not to do that and the outcome was not flattering to him.
That is not reason to question the confirmation process.
Hlder's conduct during the confirmation process leaves a lot of questions about his demeanor and those defending him or attacking the Senate need to listen to the audio tapes, maybe even call their own senator and get the other side.
If Hilder is the first judge in recent memory to be defeated in the Senate it is a sign of his stubbornness or tenacity as there have been several other appointees in recent years who have quietly withdrawn themselves from consideration when it became clear they were going to face serious opposition or even defeat.
For better or worse, Hilder elected not to do that and the outcome was not flattering to him.
That is not reason to question the confirmation process.
Hlder's conduct during the confirmation process leaves a lot of questions about his demeanor and those defending him or attacking the Senate need to listen to the audio tapes, maybe even call their own senator and get the other side.
Few good Judges anymore | 11:55 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Is it me, or are judges trying to take over the democracy call America?
It seems that being a Supreme Court judge carries more power these days than being President, and definitely more than being a Senator or Congressman.
The Supreme court seems to have crafted several new "laws" over the past century in their attempts to "interpret" the constitution.
This is even more true of federal and local judges--legislating from the bench.
In California, the State Supreme court has already overturned a democratically elected referendum re: gay marriage in 2001, and they are facing a decision to do it again now.
Can someone explain why 1 judges "interpretation" of a law or the constitution should serve as a precedence for further rulings. It is as if the previous judges' ruling was infallable and correct and is now law.
Laws should be voted on by the people or their elected representatives in congress, not by appointed judges.
It seems that being a Supreme Court judge carries more power these days than being President, and definitely more than being a Senator or Congressman.
The Supreme court seems to have crafted several new "laws" over the past century in their attempts to "interpret" the constitution.
This is even more true of federal and local judges--legislating from the bench.
In California, the State Supreme court has already overturned a democratically elected referendum re: gay marriage in 2001, and they are facing a decision to do it again now.
Can someone explain why 1 judges "interpretation" of a law or the constitution should serve as a precedence for further rulings. It is as if the previous judges' ruling was infallable and correct and is now law.
Laws should be voted on by the people or their elected representatives in congress, not by appointed judges.
Re: Hilder defeat | 12:22 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008
"To express concern over this outcome is to question the very role of the
State Senate."
Indeed. Is it their job to determine whether the man is qualified, or whether he shares their political ideology?
"Are we to presume that the governor NEVER makes a mistake in who he appoints to the courts?"
Are we to presume that Senators NEVER cross ethical boundaries when questioning appointees? Are we to presume that in case of disagreement between the governor and the senate, the senate is always right?
Indeed. Is it their job to determine whether the man is qualified, or whether he shares their political ideology?
"Are we to presume that the governor NEVER makes a mistake in who he appoints to the courts?"
Are we to presume that Senators NEVER cross ethical boundaries when questioning appointees? Are we to presume that in case of disagreement between the governor and the senate, the senate is always right?
Jim Dexter | 11:39 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008
As I understand the U gun case, Judge Hilder decided that the state-funded
university was some kind of fourth branch of government and therefore immune
from the laws passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. It was a
nonsensical decision as Utah's Supreme Court found.
It is the duty of the third branch, the judiciary, to enforce the laws of the state, not to find novel ways to help anyone avoid the consequences of noncompliance. Hilder was not promoted because of his bad judgement. His hostility to laws he apparently does not like indicates that he should not be retained either.
The Senate made the right decision. As far as I'm concerned, the Leg. should remove the defiant administrators at the U as well. Let them go find another feeding hand to bite.
It is the duty of the third branch, the judiciary, to enforce the laws of the state, not to find novel ways to help anyone avoid the consequences of noncompliance. Hilder was not promoted because of his bad judgement. His hostility to laws he apparently does not like indicates that he should not be retained either.
The Senate made the right decision. As far as I'm concerned, the Leg. should remove the defiant administrators at the U as well. Let them go find another feeding hand to bite.
Personal Injury Attorney | 9:07 p.m. Nov. 28, 2008
Most judges in Utah are completely incompetent and corrupt. Everyone knows
that. It is shameful and embarrassing to the legal community.
Hilder is a fraud | 5:19 a.m. Nov. 29, 2008
He LIED to the voters about his judges having less than 6 cases under advisement
for over 2 months. See federal case #2::08 CV 0846 in federal court.
This is about far more than just his gun rights positions.
This is about far more than just his gun rights positions.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
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.
Related content
- Today on TV 12:49 a.m.
- Wanted: Bank robber with bad breath 12:40 a.m.
- Philippine police clash with clan 12:28 a.m.
- Officer responding to call killed 12:28 a.m.
- Editorial: Fine-tune state workweek 12:18 a.m.
- Let's keep energy money in the U.S. 12:18 a.m.
- How to pay for the war 12:17 a.m.
- Feast of Guadalupe nourishes soul 12:17 a.m.
- Obama's strategy is a road map 12:17 a.m.
- Letters: 'Political priestcraft' 12:17 a.m.
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- BYU professor remembered
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Branch president without a congregation
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons
- Urn of baby rests with sailors
- Jazz upset by Wolves
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
257 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing214
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest113
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl110
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony97
- Harpring's NBA career is over95
- Sloan gets 1-year extension80
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
Sorry earlier I meant to say that tracks seems to travel at 35 miles an hour...
'Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of...
The Non-BCS crowd ought to create their own title game...their own brand, and...
That's the whole of your defense of GOP resistance to badly-needed ethics...
Your criticism should hardly be focused on Bennett alone. What about all the...
'Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a...
The reality of climate change is supported by multiple lines of evidence and...
I had the priviledge of staying in the LeBaron home on severl occasions as I...
So the unemployment rate has dropped to "just" 10%, huh? I wonder what that...
Ahh for the love of money...what money can buy!!!
Advertisements
The tactic in Utah is that when somebody disagrees with you, call them a liberal.
John at 9:14 AM wrote:
"Hilder again showed antipathy to Utah's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (Article 1 Section 6) when he voted to defy the Utah law passed to provide storage lockers for legal self defense weapons at courhouses. That makes TWO blatent cases of judicial activism from this guy."
Does anybody else get a kick out of the term "judicial activism."
Did the guy try outlawing firearms? Nope, but that is what the gun-nuts say he tried to do.
Did the guy try outlawing carrying firearms? Nope, but that is what the gun-nuts say he tried to do.
"Judicial activism." Seriously. These gun-nuts take themselves pretty seriously.
Ask them about the times they have "NRA draw down" on unsuspecting people.
The governer, who is a republican, in one of the most republican states appointed the guy. You have got to be kidding me with all the "liberal" talk.
Were the judges previous rulings liberal? Nope. He just ruled that U of U had grounds to limit guns on campus. He made a ruling based on law.