Tag: Robert Young

In particular, Young concisely and persuasively explains why the Court's decision was proper, even if conservatives may feel some disappointment that proposals that represent bad policy will make it to the ballot this November.  

However, with Governor Snyder tapping rule-of-law Justice Maura Corrigan to head the Department of Human Services, the voters of this state were understandably concerned that the governor might appoint someone who wouldn't square with the philosophy that they had voted for.  I had spoken with Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley back on last Tuesday (January 4th) regarding this, and had been assured by him that the strongest rule-of-law judge not currently serving on Michigan's State Supreme Court would be appointed to fill the vacancy.

I'm happy to notice that I've not been disappointed.

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.

We have news that Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young has been added to the speakers list for the "Sovereignty Tea Party" Rally held on the Michigan Capitol steps Sunday October 10, 2010.

The Rally is to demonstrate support for the 10th amendment.  Organizers call out:

"Join your fellow Michigan patriots as we support our 10th Amendment Sovereignty rights against Unconstitutional Federal over reach such as ObamaCare, a prime example of national law that oversteps state jurisdiction and results in the loss of rights of Michigan's citizens!"

10th amendment violations by the federal government has been a major issue often noted by Tea Partiers.

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.