It’s more than passing interesting. When confronted, Justice Robert Preston Young, Jr., admitted he used racist language…but he did so in a fit of passion, defending some poor powerless person. He apologized and said he felt bad. When confronted with a transcript of what exactly he said he admitted it wasn’t in a fit of passion. Instead he was making fun of another judge. All this in the midst of the business of the court. Hey, who cares, he says. The apology is off the table; it was a JOKE. He no longer feels bad. But he is outraged that Supreme Court Elizabeth Weaver (retired) had the very nerve to make a recording and then offer the transcript: “She probably committed a felony!” he said. In the same Associated Press story by Ed White, he quotes former Chief Justice Clifford W. Taylor: “This rogue judge was a nightmare on the court the whole time she served on it.”
I imagine Justice Taylor’s sleep has been supremely troubled by rogue conduct, including, perhaps, his own.
The returning nightmare might be his predeciding cases even before the oral arguments have been heard: In re: JK. I don’t think this specter will go away no matter how hard he tries to dream of something else. The case is chronicled in the little film we made in 2007 when Justice Weaver sat down and dropped the dime on the court. It’s long and maybe kind of boring, not the stuff of must-watch TV, but it is revealing.
But at the heart of the In re: JK case is the premature drafting and singing on to it by Justice Taylor and then Chief Justice Maura Corrigan.
Here are the memos from April 7, 2003. The oral arguments in the case were not heard until April 9th.
That’s pretty darned expeditious…have the opinion written and ready to go before you’ve heard the attorneys for all parties explain why their positions should prevail.
Is that fair? Just? Objective? Impartial?
I have read and reread the Code of Judicial Conduct and this kind of behavior is expressly precluded. You might want to read it yourself.
As for Justice Young complaining that he’s been outed, here’s Canon 2A: “… A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.”
I would wish Justices Young, Taylor, and Corrigan untroubled sleep, but I fear that will come only with right doing. None of this is about them personally…it’s about their conduct which I think is not above reproach. They can do better, and I hope they will.
As for Justice Weaver breaking the law, our legal advisors say “No.” But let this come out as it will.
76.122.146.203
2010/11/07 at 6:11 pm
It is best not to pontificate on things about which you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
If Justice Weaver was not trying to mislead you and the public, perhaps she would have informed us of the following Court procedure, which is well known to anyone connected with the Supreme Court.
A PC (per curiam) opinion is sometimes used when oral arguments are not needed whatsoever. The Michigan Court rules allow the Court to dispose of a case without hearing oral arguments on it if there are 5 votes (a super majority) to do so. It used to be the case that a Court Commissioner would draft the first copy of the PC opinion and then circulate it to the Justices, who would suggest changes and improvements. It also happens that sometimes after this, one or more Justices may change his mind and the Court will order oral arguments on the matter, even though the draft opinion is actually already written. Thereafter oral arugment will be heard, and the Justices should consider all of the arguments, but given that a super majority was about to take action without argument, it is hardly surprising that they would have preformed opinions about the case! Justices Taylor and Corrigan did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG
Betty Weaver is trying to mislead people. She tried to do so by implying the Justice Young is a racist, when in fact, in context, he was quoting another person. She is trying to do so here, by saying that certain Justices are corrupt, even though it is a common court practice that has nothing to do with their fairness and open-mindedness on a case.