After a 4-3 vote, the Michigan Supreme Court adopted new disqualification rules that are to apply to the Supreme Court itself.
After the holidays, I'd like to delve into this issue a little bit more deeply. For now, I'd like to refer to an article written by Brian McGillivaryof the Traverse City Record Eagle on December 2, 2009. In describing the new rules, long championed by Justice Elizabeth Weaver, Mr. McGillivary states:
"New rules require justices to adhere to the same standards of disqualification for bias, or the appearance of bias, that apply to appeals and trial court judges. It also sets aside a long-running court tradition that allowed individual justices to make the call on their own alleged bias."
Justice Weaver commented on the new rules, as follows:
"This newly amended rule is a positive, historical step forward toward achieving more transparency and fairness," said Weaver, of Glen Arbor. "It's fair and right that the public can have confidence they are getting a fair shake and the justices don't have other agendas."
Adoption of the new rules was opposed by Justices Young, Corrigan and Markman who, according to the article, " predicted (the) changes would usher more turmoil and animosity within the seven-member court". (Note the use of the word "more".)
This issue interests me not because it represents a victory for justice, and a defeat for some Justices with whom I do not often agree...though it does both. The issue of judicial disqualification interests me because of the recent US Supreme Court case of Caperton v Massey, wherein the question presented was:
"Justice Brent Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to recuse himself from the appeal of the $50 million jury verdict in this case, even though the CEO of the lead defendant spent $3 million supporting his campaign for a seat on the court--more than 60% of the total amount spent to support Justice Benjamin's campaign-- while preparing to appeal the verdict against his company. After winning election to the court, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in the court's 3-2 decision overturning that verdict. The question presented is whether Justice Benjamin's failure to recuse himself from participation in his principal financial supporter's case violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Massey Coal company is the lead defendant referred to in the preceding paragraph, and was the respondent before the US Supreme Court. An amicus brief was filed in support of the respondent (Massey Coal), and against recusal. Two of the ten signatories of that brief were Justices Maura Corrigan and Justice Robert Young of the Michigan Supreme Court.
I haven't read the brief yet, but I will. However, the little I know right now is enough to concern me. Further study is necessary, but after the Christmas tree, not yet up, is taken down.
So, for now, Bravo Justice Weaver.
