I don't see how Buttars has any place to critic a judge's opinion when Buttars never went to law school. He may disagree with the policy outcome, but he shouldn't criticize the reasoning.

If Buttars and Waddoups don't like Judge Hilder, that should be reason enough to vote to recommend him! Those two boneheads haven't made a good decision in decades. Judge Hilder has to be a good choice!

Buttars is intoxicated with his own agenda and is not looking at the bigger picture. Those trained in the law see Judge Hilder as a competent, compassionate judge. Buttars sees Hilder as a threat to his power using gun rights as his weapon. I am all for Second Amendment rights but Buttars is not acting rationally.

I don't support Judge Hilder's appointment to the appellate court.

Many of his decisions in cases he has heard show his lack of understanding of the law. One antitrust case in particular went from his court to the appellate courts and back more than once simply because he misunderstood the law and ruled incorrectly. This cost the parties involved tens of thousands of dollars unnecessarily.

As for the letter from the Bar Association, what can one expect? They are lawyers who know they will likely have to appear before him, either in the trial court or in the appellate court, and the last thing they want is to be on his wrong side.

Whoa! Buttars and Waddoups carefully studied what judge Hilder has done, and his judicial demeanor and his very real record as a judicial activist. They exercised their own sound judgment that Hilder is not qualified to be moved up to the Appeals court.

Waddoups and Buttars are right. Hilder is not a good choice. Utah citizens deserve better than some judicial activist with a bad record.

No matter how much his bar buddies love him.

So, according to the State Bar, Judge Hilder has done an "admiral job." If the typo is at the DesNews, shame on you. If, however, it was at the State Bar, it shows what a total bunch of boneheads Utah lawyers are, when even the head of their representative organization can't write.

As far as I'm concerned, the mere fact that former Watergate bagman and professional political sycophant Gordon Strachan testified for Hilder proves that he shouldn't be confirmed.

Robert and Voter, when will this process deal with fact and not fiction. The antitrust case was appealed once, a matter of public record. Hilder's demeanor is also a matter of public record over thirteen years, with every survey putting him in the highest level for demeanor. And, he has ruled once on guns. Tell us about the other activist cases.

Mike Waddoups is my senator. He is the father of concealed carry in Utah and is the first to recognize the dangers of liberal activist judges.

Hilder has already demonstrated his total disregard for the precise language of the Constitution in order to appease his friends in academia.

Hilder should _not_ be rewarded for his bad decisions.

To: "Accuracy"

Although Judge Hilder's final decision in the antitrust suit was appealed and reversed by the Utah Supreme Court, his "final decision" that went to the appellate court was actually his third opinion in the trial court. He decided the issues one way, then reversed himself when the attorneys pointed out his error, then finally issued his third and final decision that was different from his first and second decisions. That third decision was the one that the Utah Supreme Court reversed, saying the Judge was wrong.

Clearly, Judge Hilder did not understand the state antitrust laws that were at issue in the case, and consequently he cost the parties tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to clear up his confusion in the trial court, and tens of thousands more on appeal to reverse his final, mistaken decision.

Furthermore, the money spent on attorneys' fees is money the customers of the two water companies have had to make up in higher rates ever since. I know, because I am one of those rate-payers.

I repeat: Judge Hilder's qualifications and knowledge of the law should be carefully vetted before he is approved for a higher position.

Waddoups and Buttars would never look beyond their own narrow predujices on any person or issue.
They feel annointed to their position and their constituents keep voting them back in. How sad.

I have practiced law for 20 years. Judge Hilder is the best judge on the third judicial trial bench. I have personal experience with him as a judge, and he is great. On the other hand, I have watched our legislature act like fools, pass foolish legislation, and generally give the world the impression that Utah is a backwater. Can we please get some smart people in the legislature?

Citizens elect our legislators, and both Waddoups and Buttars just got reelected, so most people like their views and trust them.

Lawyers, however, ar not elected, and last I checked the public confidence in lawyers was not high.

Lawyers are shrewd enough to know that they will likely have to deal with judges someday and thus have a vested interest in being kind to judges.

Hilder's final of three opinions noted above in the water case was overturned. On the U of U guns case he never wrote or even stated any basis for his opinion, so Paul Boyden's claim it was based on contractual matters is pure speculation. Hilder just rendered a decision and was overturned on that too.

We don't need judges on the appeals court who have extensive experience getting their own opinions reversed.

Utah has lots of judges. Let's promote one who gets decisions right the first time, can make rational explanations of how they reached a decision (the first time, not after three bites at the apple), and does not seem to be a judicial activist.

Utah deserves better!

As the father of the young women killed and the grandfather of her children, I deeply wish people were aware of Judge Hilder's treatment of our loved ones. We painfully observed what we consider to be, at a bare minimum, a lack of diligence on Judge Hilder's part to look for the truth over the two plus years Natalie and her children were at his mercy. The average middle income family would not want this man to be responsibility for the safety and well being of their loved ones; particularly in a justice system that often caters to people who have money. This man appears to be well respected in the legal community with great power with in that community. We would hope that people will understand that Senator Waddoups and Buttars stood up to that in the interest of the average Utah family. Our family appreciates their willingness to look out for the rights and well being of your children and grandchildren very much!

"I don't see how Buttars has any place to critic a judge's opinion when Buttars never went to law school."
So only lawyers are fit to judge the actions of judges? And doctors are the only ones who can judge the actions of other doctors? And plumbers etc., etc.???

Why is it that the people who do not like Judge Hilder are the same ones armed with facts? Maybe they should instead resort to name calling and non specifics....

Robin, perhaps "facts" that are not facts are just name calling in disguise. Any one has the right to judge a judge, but judgment should probably require a real effort to know the facts--from both sides. the confirmation system does not appear to be designed to allow that.

I would like to thank the author of this article for pointing out the fact that the gun lobby really represents a minority interest and yet they are going to likely determine the outcome of Judge Hilder's appointment. I certainly hope that the legislature will realize who they actually represent and that one heavily-funded, well-organized lobby of a minority of citizens should not carry the day

As to Parker's comments, I was in attendance at the Wednesday hearing when the State Bar President appeared and gave testimony in addition to a letter that was submitted by former bar presidents. He said that the judge had done an "admirable job." But, apparently, the DNews misprinted it. It is clear that Judge Hilder is a widely admired, highly respected judge by lawyers across the state.

A judge is supposed to make hard decisions. That's why we have them. They train, they gain experience, they take on a judicial demeanor and are presented these tough cases, thousands of them over the years. Then a special interest group takes issue with one ruling, and all of a sudden that great judge is somehow suspect or unfit to judge. It seems that we need to require those who approve the Governor's choice for the bench to limit the political inquiry and keep the discussion to the judicial framework by which the judge operates, not whether he's pro-gun or anti-gun, but whether he's qualified to serve.

"if he is qualified to serve" you said should be the most important...

If he doesn't understand the 2nd amendment...then he isn't qualified to serve.

This is not just about guns, although I disagree that protecting constitutional rights is in and of itself not important enough.

I'm not a gun lobbyist and I don't support Judge Hilder, my lack of approval does not come from his attack on my constitutional rights, but on several key factors I personally do not find equivalent to those required by a member of the second highest court of this state.

There are plenty of other groups that don't support his confirmation. Why can't we find a candidate, as we have in the past, that doesn't tear the state apart. There are only six appellate court justices, it shouldn't be hard to find a candidate that does not ignite such heated debate.

Anyone that discounts his "mistakes" has not had their lives in the hands of a judge; for if they had I'm sure they would feel differently. A judge wields supreme power in his/her courtroom and with that power comes supreme responsibility.