A feud has erupted on the Michigan Supreme Court among five of the GOP members of the seven-Justice court. Justice Elizabeth Weaver has called for the removal of four of her fellow Justices for their “inappropriate” behavior and attempts to silence her when she complained about it. Justice Weaver recently published a dissent protesting the election of her colleague Clifford Taylor to serve as the Court’s Chief Justice. Justice Weaver asserted that the Chief Justice, along with Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman, misused and abused power and engaged in repeated disorderly, unprofessional and unfair conduct in the performance of the judicial business of the Court. According to Justice Weaver, the four Justices should have disqualified themselves from a particular case and then attempted issue a “gag order” prohibiting her from publishing her dissent on the matter. Justice Weaver claims that Chief Justice Taylor, in an internal memo, called her a “petulant only child” who is “holding her breath until she gets her way.” The four Justices under attack argue that Justice Weaver has violated the confidentiality of judicial deliberations. They also contend that Justice Weaver bears a grudge against them for their decision in 2001 to oust her from the Chief Justice position.
Last week, Justice Weaver asked Michigan’s Governor Jennifer Granholm and members of the State Legislature to convene an independent commission to investigate the Supreme Court controversy in order to determine whether the removal of any Supreme Court Justice is warranted. Article 6, section 25 of the Michigan Constitution enables the Governor, supported by a two-thirds majority of each house of the legislature, to remove a member of the Supreme Court. Writing in the Detroit Free Press, Carter-appointee Judge Avern Cohn (E.D. Mi.) supported the establishment of an independent commission to determine whether a Justice’s dissent can be withheld from the public if such dissent would reveal judicial deliberations and to resolve the allegations of disqualification. Judge Cohn contended that such an action was critical as the “justices have shown they are incapable of doing it on their own.” Time will tell if the infighting involves a personal rift/political grandstanding or a genuine disagreement about the scope of the cloak of secrecy over judicial deliberations.
Posted by Danielle Citron on January 28, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Comments
The underlying controversy, a legitimate point, is Justice Weaver’s belief that the MSC should change its method of resolving claims of bias when a party seeks recusal of a Justice in a case. The current rule is that, when a party seeks the recusal of Justice A, it is Justice A alone who decides the issue. She thinks that the rule should be changed. The court submitted three different proposals to do so earlier in 2006, then abruptly withdrew them.
Posted by: yclipse | Feb 6, 2007 8:10:32 AM
Much thanks, Jeff, for your comments. I integrated them into the posting. What is your take on what is going on?
Posted by: Danielle Citron | Jan 29, 2007 11:55:10 AM
I haven’t seen Judge Cohn’s op-ed, but you should note he was an active Democrat (a Carter appointee). I’m not impugning Judge Cohn’s integrity for a second (I know him), but no doubt there is political hay being made, and I’d be more impressed if a Republican appointee on senior status were suggesting that an outside agency investigate the internal workings of the court.
Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw | Jan 29, 2007 8:11:51 AM