Comments about ‘Keep courts independent’

The US Constitution does not give the President the power of choosing the Chief Justice.

The Judges of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and then, with the advice and consent of the Senate, they are appointed. The only mention in the US Constitution of a Chief Justice is in Article I where it says that the Chief Justice presides if the President is tried for impeachment.

If we are going to talk about following Constitutional methods, why not follow the method set out by the authors of the Utah Constitution? Are we to believe they were any less inspired than the authors of the Federal Constitution?

OK, based on the paradox of the previous 2 dasy editorials, what comes tomorrow?

An editorial criticizing activist judges on the Utah Supreme court and calls to limit their ability to overrule laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor?

There is one problem with the arguments made by the Justices: under current law, what happens when none of the Justices want to serve as the Chief?

The Chief Justice position requires more work with very little extra pay. If the Justices themselves are required to elect their own Chief, and not one of the five wants to serve as Chief, what happens? The current arrangement doesn't answer this question. Wouldn't someone -- perhaps the Governor -- have to step in and appoint one of the Justices to serve?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

There are a lot of things about the Utah court system that ARE broke, but this is not one.

This is nothing more than symbolic legislative territory marking.

Why not expend a little effort actually DOING something about elements of the court system that ARE broke?

Like access.

There are too few non-record courts. And they are too expensive. And they are not in session when normal people can get to them.

Procedures in ALL Utah courts, even limited jurisdiction courts are way too complicated and opaque to the average person. Good for trial lawyers, maybe, but BAD for normal people.

Why not introduce statutory pleading forms and paid ombudsmen to assist litigants?

There is a reason MOST people have never stepped inside a courtroom -- irrelevance to our lives. If we need to settle a dispute, we are a thousand times more likely to resort to destructive self-help measures than to the courts.

Changing that would both send a message AND do something good for the people of Utah.

Appointing a Chief Justice by the Governor would allow a check and balance on the predisposition on the part of the judiciary to make their own laws in their decisions rather than follow the laws the legislature has made.

Its not just a problem in Utah, but there are those on our Utah Supreme Court that are clearly activist and overstep their powers.

What happens if a justice wants to be the next chief justice? Is it possible that he/she will modify his/her opinions to ensure the necessary votes from other justices?

Make it a life-time appointment and let the Governor nominate the chief justice. Let the Senate confirm the nomination. There should be no reason that the other justices need to approve.

Senators do not select other Senators. Representatives do not select other Representatives. Both houses of the legislature have enough members that campaigning for a leadership position requires more than influencing only two other members. Letting five justices choose one another for short periods of time is childish, with the possibility of too much childish mischief.

Mike has it right. Judicial independence means independence from other judges. Having judges choose their own chief justice encourages groupthink and brownnosing, not independent thought on the bench.

RE: Liberal activist judges | 11:30 a.m. Feb. 5, 2010

How do liberal activist judges differ from conservative activist judges?

Oh that's right, your own biased perspective.

It doesn't matter which side of the spectrum you're on, if the courts make a decision you don't like, it's judicial activism. If you like the decision, it's fair and the right thing to do.

It would be hilarious, if it weren't so stupid.

(Psst, if you want a hint about what is stupid, the courts are not there to follow the laws made by the legislature. The courts exist as a check on the legislature to make sure the laws being made are in line with the Constitution.)

So then why not have the Governor choose the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate also?

Re:Liberal activist judges

"Appointing a Chief Justice by the Governor would allow a check and balance on the predisposition on the part of the judiciary to make their own laws in their decisions rather than follow the laws the legislature has made.

Its not just a problem in Utah, but there are those on our Utah Supreme Court that are clearly activist and overstep their powers."

Chief Justices are administrative officers of the court and the role of Chief Justice has nothing to do with the outcome of a court decision. What type of paper to order, what chairs to use, and how to decorate the building has absolutely nothing to do with how the Court makes decision.

Having Governors appoint Chief Justices turns an administrative job into a political appointment that allows the Governor and Legislature to control the individual vote of the Chief Justice who would be dependent on them for their continuance as Chief Justice.

You don't explain how Governors appointing one of the current Justices as Chief Justice would change the outcome of a court decision where each of the judges are equal and have the same vote.

Re:Mike Richards

What happens if a justice wants to be the next chief justice? Is it possible that he/she will modify his/her opinions to ensure the necessary votes from other justices?"

You are so right. They are going to modify their votes to get several other Justices to elect them Chief Justice but WOULDN'T CHANGE THEIR VOTES to get ONE GOVERNOR to appoint them. If you have such a low opinion of State Justices then why the hell would you want to go from needing the votes of several justices to only needing the whim of the Governor.

"There should be no reason that the other justices need to approve."

Except for the fact that you shouldn't impose an administrative officer on them.

"Senators do not select other Senators."

But Senators elect the Senate President and other administrative officers of the Senate.

"Representatives do not select other Representatives."

But Representatives do select House leadership.

"Letting five justices choose one another for short periods of time is childish, with the possibility of too much childish mischief."

Letting another branch of government have total control over another branch is childish, idiotic, and stupid.

Re:Anonymous

"Mike has it right. Judicial independence means independence from other judges. Having judges choose their own chief justice encourages groupthink and brownnosing, not independent thought on the bench."

So now Judicial independence means having one of the Justices dependent on the Governor and turning an administrative office into a political position.

It's quite obvious that you don't know what a chief justice does or you would know brown-nosing for the position is the stupidest thing anyone would do. To suggest that a Justice is going to compromise their integrity and personal opinions and experiences to be able to order supplies, oversee court employees, etc is stupid all the while running the risk of not being retained during Judicial Retention elections. What Justice is going to risk defeat in a retention election to conform their court decisions to the will of other Justices just so they can be a Chief Justice.

The ignorance of you people ceases to shock me. If its that easy to corrupt a Justice then we don't need to worry about who appoints the Chief Justice since anyone whose appointed will put being a paper pusher ahead of their integrity.

Re:lyman

"So then why not have the Governor choose the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate also?"

What a wonderful idea! I wonder which of them will vote to take away their right to choose their own administrative officers and would allow the Governor to appoint the Senate President for life for as long as he is a Senator. What a wonderful idea!!!!

In case anyone missed it. I was being sarcastic. The idea that another branch should be able to choose the administrative officers of another is ignorant. It would be like giving the Senate the right to appoint Herbert's Chief of Staff since that is essentially the role of Chief Justice.

I kinda hope this passes just so the supreme court can consider the separation-of-powers issue and say a very clear and public "No."

Yet another bill that will cost taxpayers $ to defend in the courts by legislators trying to get attention from their constituents.

We should have a law that if it fails in the courts, the money it took to defend it should come out of the district of the representative(s) that sponsored the bill.

"We should have a law that if it fails in the courts, the money it took to defend it should come out of the district of the representative(s) that sponsored the bill."

Better yet - it should come out of the pocket of the legislator(s) that sponsored the bill.

To the 11:11 commentator,
The problem is since this is a Utah Constitutional issue, it depends on the Utah Constiution. At least if they Amend the state constitution to do this, they can do it. Seperation of powers does not apply to states, in theory they could give all power to the legislature.
That is not to say it would be a good idea, but just to say that it is in theory a dobale one.
I think it is a bad idea, but that does not mean it violates the constitution.