On October 11, 2009 the Detroit Free Press ran an editorial entitled: "Restoring Judicial Restraint-Running roughshod over GOP precedents would only diminish court's moral authority".
It is an extremely interesting piece. It starts right out by acknowledging the current state of Michigan law, as created by the Michigan Supreme Court:
"In the decade between 1998 and 2008, a Republican Michigan Supreme Court majority installed by Gov. John Engler dramatically recast the rules by which criminal and civil litigants are obliged to play.
...The chief beneficiaries(of the 1998-2008 Supreme Court's decisions,ed.) were the same interests -- insurance companies, health care providers and other large corporations -- whose campaign donations bankrolled the GOP justices' ascendancy."
The editorial points out that the Engler Court overturned prior precedent at a rate over three times that of prior Supreme Court.
With the defeat of former Chief Justice Clifford Taylor last November, there is a bit of a change in the Court's composition. What now, the Freep asks. To quote:
"This newspaper spent much of the last decade criticizing the Engler Court for its obsequious deference to insurance companies and other deep-pocket defendants. We were particularly dismayed by rulings that dramatically enhanced insurers' power to deny legitimate claims, sanctioned contracting practices that bordered on fraud, and stripped Michigan residents of their longstanding right to sue polluters.
And Free Press readers might expect that we would be in the vanguard of those demanding that the new majority hasten to reverse those destructive rulings, which have effectively barred the courthouse door to many citizens with legitimate legal grievances."
But here is the paper's concern: "In the long run, any majority determined to "correct" all its predecessors' mistakes was a threat to the rule of law."
Continue reading "DETROIT FREE PRESS EDITORIAL ON JUDICIAL RESTRAINT" »
