Clifford Taylor
From Judgepedia
|
|
Contents |
Clifford W. Taylor is a Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court, and has served as Chief Justice since 2005. He joined the Michigan Supreme Court in 1997 and was an integral part of the Engler Four. Justice Taylor was up for re-election in 2008.
2008 Election results
Diane Hathaway defeated Clifford Taylor on November 4. Hathaway garnered 1,854,744 votes (49%) to Taylor's 1,484,924 votes (39%). Libertarian candidate Robert Roddis won 421,091 votes, or 11%.[1] Hathaway became the first challenger to defeat a sitting Chief Justice in the history of the court.[2]
Legal experience
Taylor received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and his law degree from George Washington University. After three years in the U.S. Navy as a line officer, he returned to Michigan and served as an assistant prosecuting attorney in Ingham County.[3]
In 1972, he joined the Lansing law firm of Denfield, Timmer and Seelye, which later became Denfield, Timmer & Taylor when he became a partner in the firm. He remained in private practice for 20 years, receiving the highest ratings for competence and character by lawyer rating organizations. In 1992, Governor Engler appointed him to the Michigan Court of Appeals where he served until his appointment to the Michigan Supreme Court in August 1997, to fill the seat vacated by retiring Justice Dorothy Comstock Riley. In 1998, Justice Taylor ran and was elected to fill the balance of Justice Riley’s term. Justice Taylor was re-elected to a full eight-year term in 2000. In January 2005, he was elected by his colleagues to serve as Chief Justice of the Court.[4]
Awards and Associations
Justice Taylor’s professional activities include service on the Board of Directors of the National Conference of Chief Justices, and on the Board of the George Mason University Law and Economics Center which provides judicial education across the country. He served in the past on the Michigan Legislature’s Commission on the Courts in the 21st Century, and on the Michigan State Board of Law Examiners. He is the co-author of a three-volume work entitled Torts which covers personal injury law in Michigan. His community activities include having served on the Board of Directors of Chief Okemos Council of the Boy Scouts of America, and the Board of Directors for the Michigan Dyslexia Institute.[5]
Taylor’s leadership of the Michigan Supreme Court has garnered editorial notice. The Oakland Press called his record “impressive” and lauded his support of “jury reform, backing proposals aimed at giving jurors more information and helping them render fair, impartial verdicts. He also would allow jurors to take notes and to ask proper questions of witnesses.”[6]
The Detroit News noted that Taylor “. . . has been careful with the public’s money as chief justice and sought reasonable ways to contain costs. He led the justices and appellate judges in relinquishing their cars. In a time of tight economic resources, he asked the State Court Administrative Office, which through the Supreme Court has oversight responsibilities for all state courts, to examine whether the number and jurisdictions of some lower court judges should be reallocated or reconsidered. It was the right kind of question for the court to be asking.”[7]
Notable Decisions
On Government Accountability
- This consolidated case (with Cooper v. Wade) addressed government liability, specifically if the City of Detroit (or individual police officers) could face civil liability for injuries sustained by passengers in vehicles fleeing from the police when the fleeing car caused the accident. In a 5-2 decision, Justice Taylor (joined by Justices Weaver, Corrigan, Young and Markman) wrote that it is unreasonable to suggest under a narrow reading of the statute that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the operation of the police vehicles. In this decision the court departed from precedent that the majority ruled was decided improperly (Fiser v. Ann Arbor, Rogers v. Detroit and Dedes v. Asch) and noted that “the rule of stare decisis is not an inexorable command.”
- While establishing a two-part test as a basis for departure from stare decisis, the court also asserted that the court’s duty is to accept the Legislature’s understanding of the laws they make. To wit, the opinion in Dedes assumed that when the Legislature wrote “The... employee’s... conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage” (emphasis added) that the Legislature meant “a” proximate cause. Writing for the majority, Taylor noted:
“After all, the judiciary has always adhered to the principle that the Legislature, having acted, is held to know what it has done, i.e., to know the difference between ‘a proximate cause’ and ‘the proximate cause’... it is not necessary to rely on theoretical surmises to conclude this, as the Legislature has shown an awareness that it actually knows the two phrases are different. It has done this by utilizing the phrase ‘a proximate cause’ in at least five statutes and has used the phrase ‘the proximate cause’ in at least thirteen other statutes. Given such a pattern, it is particularly indefensible that the Dedes majority felt free to read ‘the proximate cause’ as if it said ‘a proximate cause.’ The error will not be compounded, as today this Court corrects the flawed analysis of the Dedes majority.”
For the full text of the case, see this link.
On Property Rights
- In this eminent domain case, the County of Wayne initiated condemnations of 19 parcels of land south of Metropolitan Airport with the ultimate goal of creating a business and technology park complete with hotel, conference center and recreational activities. The County argued that the job creation and tax revenues from this project amounted to "public use" of the property pursuant to article 10, section 2 of the 1963 constitution. The plain language of article 10, section 2 includes the following: "'Public use' does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues." Defendant Hathcock and fellow property owners argued successfully that the transfer of their properties to private parties was inconsistent with the understanding of "public use" at the ratification of the 1963 constitution. Justice Young (Justice Taylor concurring) wrote that the condemnations did not advance a "public use" and reversed the lower court rulings. For full text of the case see this link.
On Standing
- In Lee, the Michigan Supreme Court settled the matter of the state’s application of the law with respect to cases where a party’s standing to appear in court was in question. Prior to 2001, the courts in Michigan applied a loosely defined standing doctrine, but never settled on a workable and explicit test to make such a determination.
- In Lee, the plaintiffs wished to compel their county board of commissioners to levy a tax to create a veteran’s relief fund for indigent veterans, pursuant to the state’s Soldiers’ Relief Fund Act. None of the plaintiffs had ever sought relief under the Act. The Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs had standing because they were “members of the class for whose benefit the Act was enacted” and they were “detrimentally affected in a manner different from the public generally.”
- In defining the state’s standing doctrine, the Court looked to the United States Supreme Court decision in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). The Court quoted Justice Antonin Scalia from his opinions in Lewis v. Casey (1996), Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995) and, of course, Lujan. Additionally, the Court cited its own prior decisions to explain standing as “...a legal term used to denote the existence of a party's interest in the outcome of litigation that will ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy. However, evidence that a party will engage in full and vigorous advocacy, by itself, is insufficient to establish standing. Standing requires a demonstration that the plaintiff's substantial interest will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large.” (House Speaker v. Governor, 441 Mich 547, 554; 495 NW2d 539 (1993))
- Justice Taylor, writing for the Court (Justices Corrigan, Young and Markman concurring), reversed the Court of Appeals and held that “injury in fact” is a necessary precondition to establish standing. Since the plaintiffs in Lee hadn’t sought relief under the specific Act in question, they couldn’t establish an injury by failing to gain relief under the Act. Justice Weaver concurred, but wrote a separate opinion to disagree with the Lujan standard. For the full text of this case, see this link.
On Tort Reform
- In this liability damages cap case, the court addressed the question whether Legislatively-enacted damage caps violated the state’s constitution by depriving plaintiffs equal protection, due process, or a jury trial. Regeana Diane Hervey, while a passenger in a car driven by another party, was killed in an accident. The vehicle had been leased from the defendant, an Enterprise Rent-A-Car franchise. Phillips, mother of the deceased, sued the franchise under a law (MCL 257.401(3)) which establishes liability for automobile lessors when permissive users (the driver, in this case), are negligent and cause an accident injuring others. The statute also capped damages for such lessors at $20,000 for each injured person to a maximum of $40,000 for each accident. The trial court ruled the caps were unconstitutional, the Appeals Court reversed and the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The crux of the issue is whether the “right of jury trial” includes as part of its meaning the right of having a jury determine damages and the jury’s determination being above correction by either the Legislature or the courts; the other issues – equal protection and due process – followed as a matter of course from the first question about the right of jury trial. The court drew on common law references that predated Michigan’s statehood to illustrate that,
“...certain elements... have long been regarded as the ‘essence’ of trial by jury” including “unanimity, impartiality, and competence of the jury” and that “the only matters ‘properly within the province of the jury’ are questions of fact.”
The United States Supreme Court (Tull v. United States (1987)) also concluded that the role of the jury is confined to finding facts and that matters of law were for the court, including the assessment of civil penalties. Writing for the majority, Justice Taylor also quoted Thomas Jefferson who wrote “...Juries therefore... determine all matters of fact, leaving to the permanent judges to decide the law resulting from those facts.” Joining Justice Taylor’s opinion were Justices Corrigan, Young and Markman; Justice Weaver concurred that the statute did not violate the three rights in question, but wrote her own opinion to support that conclusion. See this link for the full text of the case.
Judicial philosophy
Taylor describes his judicial philosphy as one of judicial restraint:
- "Judges have an important but narrow role: to apply the law as written by the Legislature. In other words, a judge has no authority to impose his personal views or pursue his own agenda."[8]
Appearances/interviews
Federalist Society
On March 7, 2008, Justice Taylor participated in a panel discussion sponsored by the Federalist Society at the University of Michigan Law School entitled "The Merits of Electing Our Judges."[9]
American Justice Partnership
Excerpt from the interview:
Regarding running for the Michigan Supreme Court twice in two years (the first, in 1998, to complete the term; the second, in 2000, to receive a full eight-year term), and what it was about that challenge that made it "rewarding":
My ability to inform the people of Michigan about what it was I was attempting to accomplish, and that was that I was a 'judicial conservative'--and by that I mean not a political conservative, but a judicial conservative. Which means that I believe the court's job is to follow the law and follow the constitution. It may be that that produces outcomes that people who aren't aware of that template find offensive.
See here for the full interview.
2008 Supreme Court campaign
Fundraising
Taylor has raised a record-setting $1.7 million for his re-election campaign through October 24. When he ran for election in 2000, he raised $1.3 million.[10] That figure sets a record for elected state Supreme Court candidates. Taylor has been present at various state fundraisers, including one at the home of Hillsdale College economics professor Gary Wolfram,[11] and another hosted by former U.S. Ambassador to Italy (and Michigan Republican fundraiser), Peter Secchia.[12],[13],[14]. According to Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson, Taylor's campaign has been bankrolled by "insurance companies and deep-pocket defendants." [15].
For Taylor's campaign contributions and spending from January 1st to August 7th, 2008, see here.
Endorsements
- The Detroit News has endorsed Clifford Taylor for reelection to the Supreme Court.[16]
- The Detroit Free Press endorsed Taylor, saying, "Voters would get a different justice in Hathaway, but not a better one. For that reason, they ought to retain Clifford Taylor, despite his shortcomings."[17]
- The Bay City Times endorsed Taylor, stating: "On Nov. 4, we recommend keeping Clifford Taylor for another eight-year term on the Michigan Supreme Court."[18]
Opposition
Despite Democratic Party opposition to Chief Justice Taylor, Democrats spent the summer of this election year deflecting inquiries concerning their Supreme Court candidate. Prognosticators suspected that attorney Marietta Robinson will again be their choice to unseat Taylor. Robinson, highly regarded in Democratic and Detroit circles, ran against Taylor in 2000; in that year, Democrats spent millions in an attempt to unseat three sitting Republican justices.[19]
Justice at Stake Defends Taylor
Justice at Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg criticized the efforts of the group Reform Michigan Government Now and their proposed ballot measure. Brandenburg said a recent ad targets Michigan Chief Justice Cliff Taylor and "appears designed to intimidate him into ruling a certain way on a potential case—or face the prospect of losing his job if he doesn’t." Brandenburg went on to say that legal cases should be based on the facts and the law, not partisan intimidation."Our courts have to be independent if they’re going to be accountable to the law and the Constitution instead of political coercion. When judges are pressured to prejudge a case before they hear it, and threatened with a pink slip if they don’t buckle, the rule of law is turned on its head."
The full press release continued: "By itself, the initiative’s treatment of the judiciary is disconcerting. It would eliminate two justices from the Michigan Supreme Court (both Republicans). Every judge in the state would have their salary cut by 15% and benefits reduced. We urge all political parties to knock off ad campaigns that undermine our system of justice. Partisan bullying of judges ought to chill the blood of anyone who wants a fair day in court."
"The measure uses seniority to determine that Justices Stephen Markman and Robert Young, half of a conservative majority on the high court constructed by GOP Gov. John Engler, would lose their seats in a downsizing of the court. Cuts in the Court of Appeals target Republican jurists as well."[20][21]
Ballot initiative to reshape judiciary
On August 20, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the "Reform Michigan Government Now" measure was too broad to be considered an amendment, and was therefore denied placement on the November ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals on September 8 in a 6-1 decision (Justice Kelly dissenting). For full details, see the Ballotpedia article on the initiative.
Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judges and trial judges would have seen salaries cut 15 percent if the proposal passed; the number of high court justices would have been cut from seven to five, and appeals judges from 28 to 21, while adding 10 trial judges. Amendment supporters divulged little information about the origins of the amendment and who paid to collect 487,000 signatures to attempt to make the ballot.
The measure appears to have been developed by Democratic strategists and Hastings-based activists who tried unsuccessfully in 2006 to move to a unicameral, or one-chamber, legislature. According to the AP story, "Democrats, while worried black voters could lose representation if legislative seats are cut, like provisions to revamp the way districts are redrawn in 2011 by shifting responsibility from the Legislature to a nine-member commission."
Under the current system, the Michigan Supreme Court hears redistricting lawsuits. The initiative would have taken away state courts' say in this process, as well as reshape the high court by cutting two justices - both Republicans - with the least seniority.
Supporters boldly attempted to frame the debate. "'The special interests will try to block the will of the people,' said Joe Lukasiewicz, executive director of Reform Michigan Government Now, which organized the proposal. 'And because every judge has a conflict of interest, the courts should stand aside and let the people decide in November on reforming Michigan's broken government.'"
Republicans charged that this was a covert power grab by Democrats, whose primary motive was defeating Taylor by hammering a conflict of interest if the measure didn't make the ballot."They're willing to throw out Michigan's constitution to do it. What an absurd abuse of power that would be," Michigan Republican Party spokesman Bill Nowling said.[22]
Controversial PowerPoint
A labor intern for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy unearthed a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Changing the Rules of politics in Michigan to help the Democrats." The presentation revealed that the Democrats' primary aim is to obtain redistricting advantages that would prove particularly helpful when it came to the state judiciary. For the complete 32-slide presentation, click here.
The eighth slide suggested that obtaining a majority in all branches of the Michigan government was "an extremely expensive and very long shot proposition" and, "Redistricting reform by itself will not be approved by the voters." To be successful, "redistricting reform must be a small part of a larger, popular state government reform proposal." The presentation suggested reducing the size of the Supreme Court by two, which would require Justices Stephen Markman and Robert Young to vacate their seats - both are members of the court's Republican majority. Additionally, it suggested "[reducing] the Court of Appeals from 28 to 20 judges, most of them [former Republican Governor John] Engler appointees." Before the public discovery of the PowerPoint presentation, the Michigan Democratic Party released a campaign commercial that stated that if the Michigan Supreme Court did not vote in favor of the proposition, then the court was biased. After the PowerPoint discovery, the Reform Michigan Government Now group quieted that approach.[23]
See Also
External Links
- Liberal Rag Rips Taylor, Demonstrates Importance of Michigan Supreme Court Race
- Mich. Chief Justice has Democratic opponent
- Widespread Support for Chief Justice Cliff Taylor
- Taylor's place in hotly contested Mich. race official
- Wanted: Democrat to push justice off Cliff
- Michigan Democratic Party Highlights Cliff Taylor as Top Target in 2008
- State’s chief justice visits city for fundraiser
- Michigan top judge's '08 bid could smash funding records
- Gov. Engler Appoints Judge Clifford W. Taylor to the Michigan Supreme Court
- Taylor Re-elected Chief Justice of Michigan Supreme Court
- Judge Weaver's Letter of Dissent to Election of Chief Justice Clifford Taylor as Chief Justice
- Cliff Taylor Re-election website
- Washtenaw County Republican Committee
- Both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Counsels Believe the Michigan Supreme Court is Biased
- Injury Board gives Taylor failing grades
- Trial Lawyers Target Three Michigan Judges Up for Election
- The Detroit Free Press
- Michigan Chief Justice on stump
References
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court results
- ↑ Detroit News Reports Taylor Concession
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court: Clifford Taylor
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court: Clifford Taylor
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court Biography
- ↑ Oakland Press 10/14/08
- ↑ Detroit News 10/13/08
- ↑ Cliff Taylor: Why This Race is Important to You
- ↑ Student Symposium Schedule
- ↑ Ever-more expensive court races
- ↑ State’s chief justice visits city for fundraiser
- ↑ Polpourri for September 28
- ↑ Detroit News, "High court justice outraises opponent", October 25, 2008
- ↑ Judge Thomas Battles for High Court
- ↑ Michigan's most secure Republican
- ↑ Return Clifford Taylor to state Supreme Court
- ↑ Detroit Free Press endorses Taylor
- ↑ Taylor for Another Term
- ↑ Democratic candidate for Michigan top court? Does anybody know?
- ↑ Bid to reform state government has partisan twist
- ↑ JAS:Michigan Court-bashing ad should end
- ↑ Michigan judges face ethical issues over pay cut
- ↑ "A Partisan Pill for Michigan's Foundational Problems"
| |||||||
