MIbLAWg: Michigan Supreme Court Commentary

Michigan Lawyers Confilcted about Maura Corrigan

     Trail lawyers in Michigan must be conflicted about the prospect of Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan being nominated to the United States Supreme Court. On the one hand, many lawyers do not agree with her and her brethren and their so called "textualist" approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation. Many Michigan lawyers and judges see this as simply an excuse to limit rights and inflict literally absurd results on the state of Michigan. A "textualist" will presumably never look beyond the point meaning of the words in a statute or constitutional provision. Of course, words rarely have just one meaning and words are never meant to be interpreted outside the context in which they are spoken.

     So, many trial lawyers would love to be rid of Maura Corrigan and would hope that Governor Granholm would appoint a less extreme jurist to the bench, with a more balanced approach. Because Bush is going to appoint someone conservative to the U.S. Supreme Court anyways these same lawyers don't feel bad about bumping justice Corrigan to the countries highest court. Because, the other Supreme Court justices are far less extreme than her Michigan Supreme Court brethren, there is some thinking that she can do less damage at a national level. Getting rid of Justice Corrigan would potentially bring some measure of balance back to the Michigan judicial system.

      I have to agree that Justice Corrigan would do less damage at the U.S. Supreme Court level. I don't think that any of the current Supreme Court Justices view themselves as "textualists." Several are certainly strict constructionists which is two steps or more to the left of the textualism approach. Furthermore, I believe that all of our Supreme Court Justices have considerable respect for the judicial doctrine of precedent and stare decisis. Even when justices disagree with previous court rulings, they are extremely hesitant to overturn precedent.

      On the other hand, Maura Corrigan and the other Engler justices on the Michigan Supreme Court openly ignore prior precedent if they simply disagree with it. Again Maura Corrigan could do less damage on the U.S. Supreme Court simply because other justices, even the most conservative ones, will not go along with Justice Corrigan's inclination to simply ignore prior case law when it doesn't suit her view of judicial review.

Congress Prefers Justice Corrigan

Bob Novak reported yesterday that support among senators for Bush's nomination in place of Miers is concentrated on two conservative women: Federal Circuit Judge Karen Williams of Orangeburg, S.C., and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan. Because there is a sense that the next nominee should be a woman, and prior judicial experience is mandatory, Corrigan's name will likely become the source of more speculation early this week.  Because there is no record for Maura Corrigan on abortion, she may be more 'confirmable' than other candidates with judicial experience who are also outspoken against Roe v. Wade.

Bush will have to decide whether he is up for the abortion fight, now the empowered Democrats are in a better position to fight back on any nomination as a result of Bush's problems across the political board.  If he is not up for a charged political battle over Roe v Wade, he may choose someone like Corrigan who won't be defined by that single issue.

As you can see here, I have rated Corrigan's chances in the top three ... 

What do you think? Call or email the President and tell him what you think.  White House switchboard: 202-456-1414 or comments@whitehouse.gov.

Justice Maura Corrigan's Name Thrown into the Mix Again

Breaking Down the Potential Female Nominees For Supreme Court:

If you view the potential female candidates for the once again open Supreme Court nominations, only two others have the judicial experience of Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan.  For instance, see this CNN link.

Assuming there is a preference to fill this seat with a woman Justice, I would have to say that Maura has an inside track.  After the Harriet Miers debacle, Bush can't possibly pick someone who is either an insider or does not have a judicial record.  That nixes most of the other female on this list thus far. Here is my own breakdown.

#1.  Judge Edith H. Jones:  Considered a staunch conservative with long record of opposing abortion. Served as general counsel for the Republican Party of Texas from 1982-83.
Nomination Chance: Strong given abortion record, although could fall to cronyism charges because of Texas connections.

#2.  Alice Moore Batchelder:   Upheld partial ban abortion.  Judicial experience. 
Nomination Chance:  Strong, conservatives would love her abortion record.

#3.  Justice Maura Corrigan: Long Michigan appellate record.  In 1992, Governor John Engler appointed her to the Michigan Court of Appeals. She was twice elected to that court and was appointed as its Chief Judge from 1997-1998 until her election to the Supreme Court. Was elected to the Michigan Supreme Court in 1998 and served two terms as Chief Justice from 2001-2004.
Nomination Chance: Strong, although lacks a record on abortion.

Also rans ...

Judge Consuelo Callahan: Only been  on the federal bench 2 years.  Limited record.
Nomination Chance:  Weak, Bush can't afford to nominate someone without a significant record.

Judge Edith Clement: She supports a constitutional right to abortion, opposes the death penalty.
Nomination Chance:  Non-existent, conservatives would not allow it.

Maureen Mahoney: Mahoney has no judicial experience.
Nomination Chance:  Non-existent, Bush can't nominate anyone with no judicial experience.

Judge Priscilla Owen: President Bush nominated her in 2001 but Senate Democrats filibustered the nomination until 2005. Before that, she was on Texas Supreme Court, elected in 1994.
Nomination Chance:  Non-existent, Cronyism and filibuster are two words that Bush does not want to hear..

Judge Karen Williams: On the bench since 1992 with less than distinguished record.  No abortion record.
Nomination Chance:  Limited, Very few memorable opinions for someone with a decade on the bench.  John Kerry faced the "what have you done with your time" arguments.  So will she.