Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Tuesday, November 25, 2008Inside the Judge Hilder Vote
By Lyle Hillyard
Senator, District 25 I was disappointed to read in the Deseret News this morning a report that Gov. Huntsman believes that legislative leadership used the promise of committee assignments to influence Senators to vote against the confirmation of Judge Hilder to the Utah Court of Appeals. That is so unlikely in my mind that I felt that I needed to respond because such comments may make the process even more difficult for the public and attorneys who apply for such positions to understand the nature of how separation of powers work under our Constitution. First, as I explained as a member of the Judicial Confirmation Committee, when I made the motion to confirm Judge Hilder, I had some reservation about his demeanor, how his case for confirmation was presented to us, and comments he had made to the press about cases that, while his involvement may have been concluded, were still pending in the judicial process and his earlier involvement and thus these comments could impact the case. These reservations did not rise, in my mind to the level that his years of great service and conduct were invalid. I knew that President-elect Waddoups and his team of new leaders were meeting beginning very early Wednesday morning to complete the committee assignments just before the crucial vote. I was asked by President-elect Waddoups just before the noon confirmation hearing to serve as the Senate Chair of Executive Appropriations, probably the most important appointed Chair in the upcoming session. He knew my position of support, but I was never asked to switch to a "no" vote. I would expect that if this “switch for position” scenario was going on, I would have heard about it, as I was a "yes" vote. Second, I told President Valentine right after the Committee Confirmation vote of 3-2 that Judge Hilder’s confirmation was in trouble. That was based on what had happened during the Senate process and the large number of contacts we were receiving mainly against his confirmation and not just because of the gun decision. I was called by Pres. Valentine and polled to see how I was voting so he could report back to the Gov. I was called again on Friday with the same question as verification. In both discussions with Pres. Valentine, I was told that the votes were clearly against confirmation but we never discussed who was voting how nor was I asked to change my vote from support. Pres. Valentine is ending his term as Senate President and would have nothing to do with the new assignments for the upcoming session. The vote on the floor was within one vote of what Pres. Valentine thought (one more voted to confirm). Third, it was the current Senate membership that voted, not the Senate body that will assume office next January. There were 6 lame ducks who will not be here in January. Three voted to confirm, two voted no and one was absent because of illness so his vote was considered a no. None of them had anything to gain with a committee assignment in 2009. Fourth, I know these men and women well and know they have needed to gain support for controversial bills and budget proposals against some strong opposition. I have never seen threats of withholding support for something they wanted or a promise of a benefit be a successful tactic. When tried by some, it has generally resulted in the long run to be very detrimental. President-elect Waddoups is much smarter than that. Were there some who were on the fence and looked to leadership both past and present for guidance? Probably yes, but I did not hear Pres. Valentine ever forcefully express how he was voting in an effort to persuade another's vote. I would not have been surprised to have seen him vote to confirm until I heard of a last minute confrontation he had experienced from the Judge. You need to remember that there are only 6 attorneys in the Senate’s 29 membership. Four voted to confirm and two voted against confirmation. Had the founders of the Constitution wanted confirmation to be strictly based on legal opinion they could have written that confirmation be made only by the attorneys. This process in the only time that the public has any input. I have often asked people who show up at “the last minute” with concerns and the general reaction is that they did not know about it until they saw the report about the Judicial Confirmation hearing and they were shocked that the Governor would appoint such a person but these people had never been asked. Two groups of attorneys seem to raise the most opposition to judicial appointments – sitting judges - because they have judicial decisions on record and county attorneys because the cases they choose to file and not file are quite public. In my 24 years of service in the Senate, I cannot remember a nominee receiving such opposition. I warned the Governor’s staff, when I was called about the 7 names referred to the Governor, that if Judge Hilder were nominated because of the notoriety over the gun decision that the Governor needed to be prepared to actively go to bat for him because there would be some opposition and explaining to do. Had it just been the gun decision, I believe he could have overcome the concerns. But things are never that simple when Senators, who must report back to the people they represent and not just the attorneys in the Senate, most of whom are from Salt Lake, about a confirmation vote to a person who is nominated to serve on a court that will make law for the State.
posted by The Senate Site at 2:06 PM | Link
|
Connect & EngageRadio Free SenateKeep in TouchTwitter UpdatesYour Government 2.0 Lab
Current Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
10 Comments:
Since becoming politically active about 10 years ago, I have had the opportunity to meet with and get to know a number of our elected officials.
With very few exceptions (usually precipitated by starting mouth before engaging brains), I have found these people to be honest, honorable, and decent, wanting only to make Utah a better place. Of course, "better" is open to debate :)
The idea that they would vote against conformation for political appointment is ludicrous. I have no doubt that there are some people who would consider it, but with my experience, any attempt to influence so many of our politicians without someone "blowing the whistle" is impossible.
Don't get me wrong - our representatives aren't perfect, but they usually bend over backwards to not only remain honest, but to keep from even appearing like they are in any way corrupt.
They aren't always successful, but if someone has an issue with them, talk to them! I have been able to approach Senators and Representatives and talk about whatever issue is on my mind.
Hilder is a fraud. He LIED to the voters in the voter information pamphlet about the qualifications of Judge Lindberg and possibly more judges. See firejudgelindberg.com for a copy of the federal complaint and PROOF of his lies, or case #2:08 CV 0846 in the federal district court. This includes and email from him as Exhibit A showing he knew that Judge Lindberg was not qualified for re-election.
Hilyard is a fraud. His 'excuses' here are every bit as small and inappropriate as the subjects he brought up in committee about Hilder's private life.
Hilyard has always been a liar. He comes across one way then plays the politics and presents himself as clear and honest. He's one of the most devious members of the Senate. He is anything but fair. He plays a game.
He set up Hilder here as much as he claims Huntsman is offbase. Hilyard was the one to bring up all the 'personal' stuff but then votes to confirm, leaving himself to look innocent. Even he admits here that Hilder was going to fail. Why? Because Hilyard set him up to fail with false, ludicrous and inappropriate personal innuendo.
Hilyard is a disgrace, the worst kind of legislator.
I didn't see anything specific about any lie in your post about Hilyard.
By contrast the lies of Judge Hilder are numerous, and his attitude and demeanor are horrible.
HILDER's belief that his job is "like god" is not his personal life, but a disturbing window on this unethical fraud's twisted soul.
Local Guy must be drinking the local kool aid. The Lyle Hillyard I know is one of the best legislators on the Hill.
There are so many sides to every story, and this one is no exception. It needs to end, because it is not really achieving anything in the search for truth. Anonymous is transparent--he is Roger Bryner and he is pursuing his own agenda, suing Hilder and Judge Lindberg, and many others, all in his obsessive hatred of the judicial system.Hillyardis in many ways a fine senator, but he omits to mention his own unconstitutional and illegal questioning and his breach of confidentiality from the closed session in his explanation of his actions. One truth is that this was a bad experience for many good but still flawed people. Let's learn from it, and move on.
There was nothing unconstitutional or illegal about the questioning of Judge Hilder, give me a break, the entire Utah bar is said to stand behind the man. IF something illegal had happened don't you think the courts would already be brimming with petitions seeking retribution.
Please, this process was completely fair and done in accordance with the law of our land, both state and federal.
Personal questioning? Has anyone ever watched a Supreme Court nomination hearing, can you say Clarence Thomas? Please people renew your subscription to C-SPAN.
And if you want to see a real and national example of partisan politics in a judicial confirmation proceeding, read below what President Elect Obama said about Chief Justice Roberts before he voted AGAINST his confirmation.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/
I find it remarkable that those who know him best and appear before him frequently have unanimously attested that Judge Hilder has an even temper and is a fair and thoughtful judge, and yet members of the public who have never seen the man assert the opinions of practicing lawyers should be entirely discounted because they aren't impartial in their appraisal. In any decision made by Judge Hilder, there is at least one lawyer who is likely going to be unhappy with a ruling made against him; but none of those lawyers have come forward even anonymously to condemn the man. Doesn't that say volumes about Judge Hilder's demeanor and the general respect he has earned from the bar? Do we really think that an afternoon's worth of impressions from non-lawyers should trump a career worth of colleagues' opinions? Who among us would think it fair that our peers' opinions should be entirely disregarded in evaluating our personality and attitude and fitness for a job? No one. So why do we give more weight to the Senators' opinions (as I think most non-lawyers do in this matter) than lawyer opinions?
Briant,
There were attorney's who anonymously and one that was not anonymous that testified against Judge Hilder, listen to the hearings. He does not have unanimous support of attorneys nor has the bar as an organization supported him.
There are rules that prohibit and warn attorney's from speaking negatively about judges up for nomination, did you know that? But as I am a member of the group you speak of, I felt the need to tell you as a member of the Utah Bar I most definitely did NOT support Judge Hilder's confirmation.
I admire the senators that were not bullied by certain members of the bar, that spouted their praise for a man that holds their clients lives in his hands on a daily basis.
I am an attorney and I'm not arrogant enough to believe my opinion should be valued higher than anyone else's when it comes to the government of our state.
There are only six appellate court positions, I believe that there will be a nominee that can fill the position without tearing the state apart.
"Anonymous said...
Hilder is a fraud. He LIED to the voters in the voter information pamphlet about the qualifications of Judge Lindberg and possibly more judges. See firejudgelindberg.com for a copy of the federal complaint and PROOF of his lies, or case #2:08 CV 0846 in the federal district court. This includes and email from him as Exhibit A showing he knew that Judge Lindberg was not qualified for re-election."
Too bad this statement is TRUE.
Yes, "Roger" it is "okay" to call one a liar when in fact they are one. Until the "good 'ol boy (gal) backslapping" stops around here, you can expect to see bad justice in Utah and continued propping up of unqualified judges such as Judge Denise Lindberg.
I'd sign other than Annoymous, but your system is "broken" and not accepting openID signatures.
Roobah
Post a Comment
<< Home