Michigan's Radical Supreme Court

The Michigan Supreme Court has been  labeled many things in the last few years.  Many call it the 'Engler Court'  (in reference to the ex-Governor John Engler who many assert packed the courts with political cronies with little judicial experience) .   However, the latest round of bad decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court was so unprecedented (pardon the pun) that even the staid Associated Press finally admitted that our highest court has earned a ‘radical reputation.'  The court itself has been under attack for being political and result oriented.

Regardless of your political posture, such a reputation does tremendous harm to the Michigan judiciary and public confidence in our justice system.  The judiciary is supposed to be independent and 'non-political.'  This third branch of government is the check and balance on the two other political branches.  When our courts become politicized, every Michigan citizen stands to lose.

Here are some links of interest:

• MTLA President Michael Pitt's Column
• Justice at any price?
• Michigan Supreme Court: The Impact Will Be Felt for a Decade
• Fieger to file complaint against four Supreme Court justices
• Trial attorney takes issue with critics on Supreme Court
• Complaint against four state Supreme Court justices
• Trial Lawyers Target Three Michigan Judges Up for Election
• Restore Balance and Fairness to the Michigan Supreme
• Michigan Supreme Court Targets Women
• Justice Nobody
• Justice Markman Ad- Extremist

   

Comments

[Activism is Activism]

Liberal courts were called 'activist' because they supposedly failed to follow legal precedent and extended legal principles in favor of people over corporations.

At no point in the history of Michigan jurisprudence has there been a court which ignored legal precedent in favor of their own political view as today. When courts fail to apply the law and follow prior precedent, uncertainty becomes inevitable. Uncertainty in the law destabilizes the entire judicial system. Judges have become legislators, making law instead of applying it.

When the law depends on the judge as opposed to the words, lawyers can't advise their clients. Trial judges start following trends as opposed to laws.

It will take a decade to recover from the activism which has dominated the trial courts, the court of appeals and the supreme court. Unfortunately, the clock won't start won't start to run until after the present judicial powerbrokers are replaced with judges who understand their limited role in our tri-parte democracy.