This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

District court judges and Supreme Court justices play distinct roles in our constitutional system and merit distinct approaches. Bound by the precedents of higher courts, district court judges have relatively little ability to bend the law to their personal preferences. By contrast, Supreme Court justices can overturn precedents and rewrite the law any time they can get four of their colleagues to agree. District court judges' limited ability to inject politics into their decisions has kept the confirmation process for such judges relatively apolitical, whereas the efforts of liberals to appoint Supreme Court justices who will manipulate the law and the Constitution for political ends has turned Supreme Court confirmations into pitched partisan battles.

As your United States senator, I have gone to great lengths to explain why the Senate should conduct the Supreme Court confirmation process after this particularly nasty election season is over. While reasonable minds can differ on how the Senate should approach this issue, the Tribune's recent editorial, "Hatch should reciprocate and consider Garland nomination for Supreme Court," continues to distort and dismiss my arguments. It's disappointing to see such a respected newspaper show such little interest in accurately portraying both sides of a complex issue.

Sen. Orrin Hatch

Salt Lake City