• Home
  • News
  • Michigan Chief Justice Loses in Stunning Upset

Judiciary

Michigan Chief Justice Loses in Stunning Upset

Posted Nov 5, 2008 10:41 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The conservative chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court has lost a battle for re-election after an ad funded by the state Democratic Party accused him of falling asleep during a case, a charge he denied.

Chief Justice Clifford Taylor lost to challenger Diane Hathaway in a “stunning upset,” the Detroit Free Press reports. Taylor was designated the incumbent in a nonpartisan election, but the chief justice charged Democrats had politicized the contest.

The sleeping judge ad "wasn't true, but it was a very compelling piece of political theater," Taylor told the Detroit News.

Hathaway’s win changes a 5-2 Republican majority on the court to a slimmer 4-3 edge for the party, the Detroit News reports. Taylor is the first incumbent on the state supreme court to lose an election since 1984 and the first chief justice to lose since statehood, the story says.

Comments

1.

blackburn rfc
Nov 7, 2008 8:22 AM CST

Stop.  Electing.  Judges.

Flag this comment

2.

Larry Gillis
Nov 7, 2008 8:24 AM CST

The election of judges is a cancer on the body politic.

Flag this comment

3.

Kevin
Nov 7, 2008 8:35 AM CST

So what is the other option?  Appointment?  Then they’re just appointed by an elected official, which is just an indirect way of saying that they are elected.  Only now instead of giving them the boot if they (for example) fall asleep during proceedings, we’re stuck with them for life because they were appointed instead of elected.

Flag this comment

4.

cp
Nov 7, 2008 8:37 AM CST

If the judge was sleeping, I blame the lawyers.

Flag this comment

5.

Michael
Nov 7, 2008 8:41 AM CST

The real issue, though, is that he was elected as a strict constructionist but was always willing to be an activist if he did not like the result.

Flag this comment

6.

Doug
Nov 7, 2008 9:02 AM CST

Doesn’t it underscore the potentially ridiculous outcomes of electing judges, since the electorate almost never does, and really almost never CAN, know very much about judges’ true abilities?  And the alternative is pretty much what Virginia does—they are recommended through a process involving lawyers who know, the process is somewhat (occasionally very) politicized, but then the state legislature appoints them, for a term of years.  Still not perfect, but far more likely to yield qualified judges who don’t have to campaign in ignorant elections.

Flag this comment

7.

NYC
Nov 7, 2008 9:02 AM CST

Appointment is not an indirect election.  Appointees are vetted by bi-partisan confirmation panels.  That is a long way from an election.

Flag this comment

8.

Scott Ocnnell
Nov 7, 2008 9:27 AM CST

You may disagree with Taylor’s politics (I do), but no one can state with a straight face that Hathaway is qualified to be a justice.  She is a law as a 2nd or 3rd career type, with no pedigree or scholarly endevor.  She will be the Clarence Thomas to the Scalia that is Cavanagh.  She is just a vote for the liberal side every time.  I don’t expect much from her in terms of analysis.  I hope she gets some good clerks to think and write her opinions.

Flag this comment

9.

Schmidlap
Nov 7, 2008 10:14 AM CST

Keep electing judges.  The public is smart enough to elect a president, but not a judge?  The common man should be removed from the process I guess, only other lawyers should be allowed to pick candidates.

Flag this comment

10.

Nancy
Nov 7, 2008 10:36 AM CST

At least the electorate has a clue what the President does.  Non-lawyers rarely, if ever, have a real clue what it takes to be a good judge.  (Watching legal tv shows does not an informed electorate make.)  Appointment might not be perfect, but it is a whole lot better than election.

Flag this comment

11.

the_mad_nader
Nov 7, 2008 11:08 AM CST

The people elect the President because the President, so some degree, represents the people.  Judge are NOT intended to represent the people, but rather be impartial arbiters of the law who, when appropriate, rule in accordance the law even if it stands contrary to popular opinion.  Electing judges is a mistake.

Flag this comment

12.

Pumpkin
Nov 7, 2008 1:23 PM CST

Haha, this reminds me of an incident years ago when I went to my elderly professor’s office hours and HE dozed off while lecturing me.  I was so embarrassed for him, I began furiously writing a shopping list on my legal pad, just so that when he wakes up he would think I was taking notes and hadn’t noticed his nap.

Flag this comment

13.

Oracle
Nov 7, 2008 7:31 PM CST

Another in a long list of examples where Democrats lie, cheat, disparage, or steal to obtain power.  With any luck, they’ll all eat themselves alive, leaving only the conservatives.

Flag this comment

14.

realist
Nov 7, 2008 8:57 PM CST

Michigan residents cannot sue the pharmaceutical industry if harmed or killed by unsafe drugs.  Taylor decided that.  This state is a corporation’s dream come true when it comes to avoiding tort liability.

We have the most conservative Supreme Court in the nation and it is harming our state.  I expect Taylor to be the first to go.

This is not going to be a manufacturing state anymore.  Read today’s news.  We are a Buick-Oldsmobile-Cadillac ghost town.

What’s wrong with coming to the law as a 2nd or 3rd career?  Maybe such a judge will have some real world experience rather than being a “know-it-all” attorney who thinks the law is the be all and end all and no other career has anything of value.

Good riddance to Justice Taylor. Take your naps at home.

Flag this comment

15.

marvin sparrow
Nov 8, 2008 9:42 AM CST

appointment is every bit as bad as direct election.  look at the worst court we have in america today, the US Supreme Court.  They are appointed, and all the recent appointments have been awful, and probably much worse than we would have elected

Flag this comment

16.

Joseph Myers
Nov 8, 2008 12:00 PM CST

There are instances of elections in which it seems clear that the public ends up having made a terrible choice.  And I truly distrust having any political party involved in the process—it ought to be nonpartisan.  The real problem with election of judges is that there is usually no relevant information available for voters.  I suppose, of course, that when there is a disconnect between majority opinion and what the law should be (e.g. most of the rights guaranteed to the minority) an election threatens the law.  More information, more transparency, and less political party pressure would seem the best way to improve elections.

Flag this comment

17.

George Sly
Nov 8, 2008 6:14 PM CST

I agree with balckburn and Mr. Gillis, judges should not be elected.  Kevin, states with appointed judges do not have to appoint them for life.  In New Jersey they are appointed by the governor with the advise and consent of the state senate for an initial seven years.  If a judge is reappointed, that judge then has tenure to the mandatory retirement age of seventy.  In addition, under our system the governor must alternate between the parties, regardless of the governor’s party.  The result is we do not have the corruption scandals that I see in the judiciary of other states., nor the extremes in decisions based on political ideology.

Flag this comment

18.

DCEsq
Nov 9, 2008 4:21 PM CST

If the election is deemed nonpartisan then why is there a Republican majority on the court cited?

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.