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.
Comments