Michigan State Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Markham's probity is in serious question and he doesn't even get it. In his "Statement Denying Motion to Recuse in Emergency Manager Case."
Steve Markman makes his own case against his recusal. In a biblical sense, if not in a strict-what will Michigan law allow sense - Markman should "avoid the very appearance" of conflict and the evil/corruption that may be associated with going forward on Snyder's requested EMF ruling.
In campaigning in the past with former Chief Justices Mary Coleman and Elizabeth Weaver questions would arise from citizens about the justice's stances on various questions, usually some "moral issue" and both ladies would always decline comment or conjecture. They had no wish to telegraph or indicate before-the-fact how they might rule on an issue however hypothetical. They were ethically intent upon preserving the highest standards for probity.
Justice Markman, however, prior to being elected to the Michigan Supreme Court reveled in stating his opinion on rulings that would involve business interests. His most often quoted, pet topic-at the time, the case of the McDonalds' too hot coffee. Markman ridiculed the substance of this case and belittled its importance. As it turned out, McDonalds was serving extremely hot coffee, particularly unsuited to drive up/drive thru service, in a container and under a condition that caused scalding burns. The corporation was loath to change its method of brewing because , it was said, the replacement of the brewing equipment would be of a too high cost. Thus, they persisted in selling and packaging coffee with a serious burn capacity willfully ignoring the harm such over hot coffee could inflict on customers.
Steve Markman thought this case was a hoot, a frivolous legal action of the type he personally would not condone or approve if elected to the Michigan Supreme Court he clearly projected.
At a Republican event, Markman was asked about his association with the Federalist Society. What is the Federalist Society? Is it sort of like the AAA, a service that renders help to its membership if they go into a ditch? "No," replied Markman, "it is like the ACLU." There you have it. Markman, early on, understood and knew that he was constructing a persona as a potential Michigan Justice that would fit the Federalist philosophy, which in Markman's estimation was the equivalent/equal to that of the aggressive ACLU-a group known for its activistism and pursuit of issues from a strong perspective and tight philosophy.
Likewise, Markman knew that he would be in pursuit of a set of "values" which he demonstrated through his ridicule of the "Too Hot" McDonald's legal case. The partisan audiences he addressed in his campaign (to be elected for the first time to the Michigan Supreme Court) fully understood that he had a set opinion framework and was telegraphing his future decisions based on his modeling of the McDonalds' legal case.
Markman lost his probity then, and now his test of probity-as a "too political" justice-comes to the forefront again via a conflict of interest involving Markman's wife and her state/political position.
This time in by remaining ready to rule on this attempt by Rick Snyder to preemptively/via judicial activism-have Markman and the other justices decide in advance the outcome of any lower court rulings " the survival and validity of the TeaPublican's assault on voter franchise and local government authenticity and survival under his dictatorial Emergency Finance Manager legislation/regime.
Original.
No comments:
Post a Comment