Buttars At It Again

In today’s SL Tribune: Buttars’ crusade stirs the pot again Pending bills: Church and state, judges’ terms are the focus this time

The conservative West Jordan Republican has asked state attorneys to draft a bill defining the separation of church and state outlined by America’s and the state’s founding documents. At the same time, he is proposing legislation to require state judges to face legislators in a second confirmation hearing after their first term in office. Critics say such a law would undermine the sacrosanct division between the branches of government.

“It’s gotten ridiculous. We have Christmas wars and White Cross wars,” said the chairman of the Judicial Confirmation Committee, referring to battles between atheists and the state. “The state has become hostile to religion.”

Buttars won’t release the details of this bill.

The other bill on which Buttars is working is obviously a personal one to get rid of what he calls “activist judges”.

Buttars’ other bill to change judicial retention rules is much more public. Buttars believes the vast majority of Utah judges – “about 98 percent,” he says – are doing their jobs just fine. It’s the others, the ones who have overstepped their bounds, he wants to hold accountable. He has a growing list of a dozen cases where he says judges have ignored or redefined state law – including a divorce battle over insurance.

But has Buttars overstepped his boundaries?

Buttars acknowledges he has not reviewed whether such a law would be constitutional. Legal scholars and judges alike say Buttars is creating a problem where none exists. They say Buttars’ legislation would upset the time-honored, delicately-balanced separation between the branches of government. The U.S. and Utah Constitutions already provide frustrated lawmakers a simple remedy for errant judges – they can simply change a law if they do not like a judge’s interpretation. Disgruntled voters can dump a judge they don’t like.

Quite a few folks are interviewed in this article about Buttars’ proposed legislation, most of whom recognize the absurdity of it.

Former University of Utah Law School professor John Flynn, who specialized in the Utah Constitution, agrees. He says Buttars’ legislation would be constitutionally “suspect.” Beyond that, “it’s asinine and absurd.”