"we as conservatives are supposed to want judges who will do the right thing, no matter how much that person disagrees with the politics of it!  That is what sets us apart from the left: we believe in the Rule of Law, which means that even if it leads to bad results for us, we want our judges to judge things as the text of the Constitution or statute or contract or whatever requires. "

We can frame our analysis around our desired outcomes, but the truth is the truth.

Last note:

"And for heaven's sake, please do not let the fact that a judge has, once, voted for a case where you may disagree with the outcome sour you on a person's entire judicial philosophy or record. "

Still studying on these candidates.  The words 'liable' and 'responsible' being bridged did not sufficiently convince me that Markey is not rule of law in that case.

Does one bad decision a bad judge make - of course not.  Is M.B. Kelly another David Souter?  We don't know yet - we've only had a year and a half of "court watching" to gauge her by.  Jane Markey has participated in at least 4,891 decisions and opinions (as of 31 July 2012) since taking the Court of Appeals bench in 1995.  Conservatives may take issue with a few of these thousands of opinions.  The point is, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that Jane Markey is a solid rule of law judge.  People do need to be informed regarding judicial philosophy and Jane Markey is not just an "open book," she is an "open library."

Following the rule of law is a philosophy.  From this philosophy comes a process of analysis.  From this process comes a conclusion.  It is the philosophy and the process which marks a rule of law judge - not just the conclusion.  Liberal judges start from the conclusion they want to reach and work backwards and fashion a justification.  Applying the rule of law when interpreting or applying the constitution or statutes can lead to different conclusions by conservative judges.  For example, People v. Rapp, decided July 27, 2012, by the SCOMI, involved the constitutionality of an MSU ordinance (and will be the subject of a later article in this series).  Young and MB Kelly joined the empathy wing in striking down the ordinance.  Zahra dissented and was joined by Markman.  Zahra's comment in dissent on the majority opinion was enlightening:

"This Court is responsible for upholding both the Michigan and federal constitutions, but its authority to invalidate laws is limited and must be predicated on a clear and apparent demonstration of unconstitutionality.  Absent that demonstration, the majority's decision, in my judgment, is an expansion of judicial power and an unwarranted encroachment on the legislative branch of government."

Whether this is a good or bad outcome is not the point - it is how the outcome was reached that matters.  We can debate the EFM / PA4 case all day long, both as to judicial approach and conclusion.  The point is that we have something to debate because we have something to read which gives some insight into judicial philosophy.  Without something to read and analyze, we are left with slogans and "trust me" pronouncements.