Tag: Alton Davis

This meant that, for the two months between Election Day and Inauguration Day, a rule-of-empathy majority still existed on Michigan's State Supreme Court.  And just like the legislature, the high priesthood of creative interpretation held a lame-duck session, in which they've managed to come up with a way to screw us all.

This year's Michigan Supreme Court election will spotlight the "Rule of Law" issue. Voters will be asked to decide between Justice Robert Young and Judge Mary Beth Kelly (the Rule of Law judges) and Justice Alton Davis and Judge Denise Langford Morris (the "empathy" judges).

Simply described, RoL judges interpret the constitution, laws, and contracts by the plain meaning of the words used by their authors. Empathy judges, in contrast, interpret the same words in order to reach a desired result.

Here's a perfect example -- Elizabeth Weaver's parting gift to Michigan jurisprudence. The case is Shay v Aldrich, decided August 23, 2010. In short, the plaintiff sued five defendants, alleging that they had assaulted him. Partway through the case, the plaintiff settled with two of the defendants and signed two separate releases, each releasing a defendant "together with all other persons, firms and corporations, from any and all claims, demands and actions which I have now or may have arising out of any and all damages, expenses, and any loss or damage resulting from an incident occurring on September 8, 2004."

After the plaintiff signed these releases, the other defendants moved to dismiss the remaining claims, arguing that the plaintiff had waived them. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. finding the releases unambiguous. The Michigan Supreme Court then granted leave to appeal and reinstated the claims against the remaining defendants, finding in a 4-3 opinion by Weaver that the plaintiff did not intend -- despite the clear language of the releases -- to waive any claims against the remaining defendants. The Weaver opinion equated "broad" with "vague" and permits the parties to use extrinsic evidence to introduce ambiguities into a contract, thus necessitating "interpretation" where there previously was none.

Contrary to the published version of Mr Davis' filing HERE, it seems he accepted a nomination by the Michigan Democrat party.  While writing this, the copy of the Democrat nominations arrived for verification.  He was indeed officially nominated by the Democrat party.  There can be no challenge to his ability to run.

However, he does not meet the incumbency rule in the state constitution as he should not file as incumbent because of his short term less than 180 days.

The thing that drew my attention to this originally, is how it is strange that Denise Langford, is SHOWN as the only NOMINATED SC candidate by Democrats on the candidate  roster for the state.

Shall I be the first to cast stones?

Not in the classic sense.  God has made me but one man among many.  Many men who have differing opinions, but come together at points to agree on how best we serve each other in fairness and recognizing the natural born rights we all share.  Part of those agreements make up the law to be followed by all the citizens.  I must atone personally for my own mistakes, and must also follow rules previously established, else I pay a price in some manner.

Unless.. he had ALREADY filed the affidavit prior to his commission by governor Granholm?  From the Michigan Constitution:

§ 2 Justices of the supreme court; number, term, nomination, election.

Sec. 2. The supreme court shall consist of seven justices elected at non-partisan elections as provided by law. The term of office shall be eight years and not more than two terms of office shall expire at the same time. Nominations for justices of the supreme court shall be in the manner prescribed by law. Any incumbent justice whose term is to expire may become a candidate for re-election by filing an affidavit of candidacy, in the form and manner prescribed by law, not less than 180 days prior to the expiration of his term.

It is 121 Days till the end of his term... His appointment to fill the remaining term was 6 days ago..

The fake Tea Party has filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, asking that court to overturn the Michigan Court of Appeals, a panel of which voted unanimously that the FTP should not be on the November ballot. With the much publicized departure of E. Weaver and the elevation of Alton Davis, this will be the first rule-of-law test for the newly constituted Supreme Court.

The Fake Tea creation of the Michigan Democrats are hoping to take advantage of retired justice Weaver's slight to the Republicans, and perhaps citizens of Michigan.  The lawyer for "The Tea Party" Michael Hodge, has filed to the Michigan supreme Court, requesting it reviews the Appeals court decision.

There is now a 4-3 construction of the Michigan Supreme court that favors Democrat "interpretation activism" versus the 3-1-3 balance between Proper refereeing-"Who Knows anymore"-Interpretation activism.  MLive reports:

"The Tea Party" filed an emergency appeal Tuesday, according to a Supreme Court spokeswoman. Attorney John Pirich, who represents the GOP and tea partiers, said he'll decide what steps to take once he reviews the appeal.

A lawyer for "The Tea Party," Michael Hodge, has argued that the size of the type face isn't reason enough to keep "The Tea Party" off the ballot since the group's petitions substantially meet state requirements. State election officials estimate the party submitted about 45,000 valid voter signatures, far more than required by state law.