|
Effort to
Make Court Arguments Glenn Gilbert More than a decade ago, South Carolina state Sen. Glenn F. McConnell asked Magistrate Karen Lynn Kanes during a confirmation hearing whether she had ever heard of the term "robitis." "Robitis?" she replied. "It's where the robes on a judge become so heavy, it scrambles their brains," McConnell explained. Robitis is not a particularly flattering term. The idea is that once he or she puts on a judicial robe, an individual becomes a different person. The judge suffering from this malady has lost touch with common sense or become arrogant from his or her aggrandized self-perception. It is an all-too-frequent occurrence, and may help explain the current wrangling on the Michigan Supreme Court. Instead of casting Justice Elizabeth Weaver as an eccentric gadfly or malcontent, she should be commended for identifying a serious affliction on the high court that ought to alarm the state's taxpayers: robitis. A 4-3 majority of the court wants to clamp a lid of secrecy around justices' deliberations. Judge Richard Suhrheinrich of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told The Associated Press that there is an unwritten code of confidentiality at the U.S. Supreme Court, where internal communications have mostly stayed secret until justices have died. "If that tradition is good enough for the Supreme Court of the United States, it should be good enough for this court," Suhrheinrich said. This is a thumb in the eye. Suhrheinrich definitely suffers from robitis. There seems to be a general arrogance on the part of the judicial branch of government that the public is too stupid to comprehend the deliberations of our robed legal experts. But this is not the case. Whether it's the O.J. Simpson murder trial, a class-action lawsuit or eminent domain ruling, the public has demonstrated an insatiable interest in and - much to the consternation of our stuffy, robed jurists - a comprehension of supposedly complex issues. Yet this didn't stop four of our Michigan Supreme Court justices from adopting a rule last month declaring that "all correspondence, memoranda and discussions regarding cases are confi dential." Why? The Supreme Court is a public institution created and paid for by we, the people. All manner of similar records produced by the other two branches of government - executive and legislative - are, and should be, public. Somehow, the judiciary feels that public confidence in their system will be compromised if taxpayers learn that judges show emotion, disagree sharply over issues and actually argue. What's wrong with this? Aren't we adults? Why are we supposed to believe that somehow, when an indi- vidual puts on a robe, he or she becomes some sort of exalted being? It just isn't so. Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and colleagues Maura Corrigan, Robert Young and Stephen Markman voted for the confidentiality rule while Michael Cavanagh and Marilyn Kelly joined Weaver in dissenting. The rule apparently was intended to prevent Weaver's disclosure of material involving Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger's ongoing battle with the high court over Michigan's rule directing when judges should be disqualified from cases. There is no question that certain private material involving cases should not be disclosed prematurely. But as Weaver correctly points out, the confi dentiality ruled adopted by the court is far too broad. Weaver said it "can be employed by any majority to impermissibly and unconstitutionally restrict the content of a justice's dissent or concurrence. Thus, any present or future majority can in essence censor and suppress a dissenting or concurring justice's opinions. "The public has a vested, constitutional interest in knowing the reasons for a dissenting or concurring justice's divergence from a majority opinion. The majority of four's efforts to censor and suppress the opinions of other justices significantly affect the administration of justice and violate the Michigan Constitution," Weaver continued. She called the new rule a gag order and indicated she would ignore it if necessary. Weaver also complained that the rule had been adopted without a public hearing. So the court backtracked and held a hearing last week. Judges who testified at the hearing in favor of the confidentiality rule said they talk more candidly and make better decisions when they know their deliberations will stay private. The court may now determine what sanction might be applied if a justice violates the rule, or it could change or rescind the rule altogether. It may be that Weaver's critics have a point when they say she is merely piqued because her colleagues declined to re-elect her as chief justice several years ago. But that doesn't affect the validity of her arguments. Putting on a robe should not cloak an individual from public scrutiny. The public needs to know more - not less - about deliberations occurring within the judiciary branch. Glenn Gilbert is executive editor of The Oakland Press. E-mail him at Judge Weaver asks for appointment of independent commission to investigate controversy in the court click here Disorder Rules in Michigan Court By David Eggert LANSING, Mich. - The notion of black-robed judges as symbols of decorum and civility seems almost laughable these days in Michigan. Justices on the Michigan Supreme Court have fallen into sniping and name-calling and have traded accusations of unprofessional conduct. One justice referred to another as a ''very angry, sad woman'' and suggested she go on a hunger strike for everyone else's benefit. ''It's almost like they're children, isn't it?'' said Brian Einhorn, a Southfield, Mich., lawyer who represents judges in disciplinary cases. He said he has been getting calls from lawyers in other states asking about the bad blood. ''It's embarrassing for all members of the bar,'' Einhorn said. At the center of the dispute is Justice Elizabeth Weaver, an outspoken 65-year-old Republican who was first elected to the high court in 1994. She accuses Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and three other GOP members of the high court of engaging in unprofessional conduct and trying to muzzle her when she complained about it. The justices under attack say Weaver's criticism stems from their 2001 decision -- joined by the court's two Democrats -- to oust her as chief justice. In a draft opinion, later revised but recently disclosed by Weaver on a personal website she maintains, Taylor wrote last year that Weaver was behaving like a ''petulant only child'' over the appointment of a probate judge and suggested she go on a hunger strike ``as it seemed to have the potential for everyone to be a winner.'' ''We are going through a difficult spell with a troubled member,'' Taylor, 64, who has been on the court since 1997, said in an interview. ``This is a very angry, sad woman.'' Feuding among the five GOP justices on the seven-member court has gone on for years. It flared up last summer in a divided ruling on reprimanding trial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger -- known best for defending assisted suicide advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian -- for vulgar comments he made about judges. At the time, Weaver said her colleagues ought to disqualify themselves from hearing the case because of public comments some made about Fieger when he was running for governor in 1998. She complained recently that she was called names, that she was told she might be banned from the courthouse, and that she and two Democrats were excluded from case conferences. Her colleagues, in turn, accused her of violating the confidentiality that traditionally protects judges' deliberations, and hit her with what she described as a gag order, which was later rescinded. The rancor could intensify today when the court considers a new rule issued by the GOP majority -- minus Weaver -- to keep private all internal memos and communications. The majority wants to consider what punishment, if any, can be imposed on a justice who violates confidentiality. Weaver, whose current eight-year term runs through 2010, said she will not be deterred from speaking out.
|
|
A Feast
|
