Is it impossible these days to have a discussion about an issue or a political race without it becoming personal? Apparently so, at least for one backer of Judge Jane Markey.
Markey is up against Colleen O'Brien for one of three Republican nominations for Michigan Supreme Court justice. As faithful readers of this blog know, your Wizard has published three articles critical of Markey decisions, principally on the grounds that they contradict her claim to be a "rule of law" judge. I have never attacked Judge Markey personally, nor have I attacked her supporters.
But they have attacked me personally.
The latest attack was purportedly authored by one Steven Vander Ark in an email distributed to the delegates to this weekend's Republican convention. He says that I practice "the dark art of magic - turning fiction into fact while hiding behind
the curtain of anonymity. Any lawyer reviewing his 'analysis' of Markey's
decisions would recognize a straight up hatchet job: it is no wonder he wants to
remain anonymous. His blog is a shameful sham set up for the sole purpose of
producing political smears under the guise of legal analysis." He goes on to criticize my discussion of the Wilkie case and my quoting of the Chief Justice in the Progressive Insurance case.
You know, if you're going to lie about me, at least tell the truth while doing it.
Here's where Mr. Vander Ark and the truth part company:
1. This blog was established in 2007; it was not "set up for the sole purpose of producing political smears under the guise of legal analysis."
2. I never discussed the Wilkie case, and I do not consider a reversal as any reason not to vote for a judge. As a judge whom I respect frequently says, "Even when the court of appeals affirms me, I still think I'm right." I have never criticized Judge Markey or any other judge because one of their decisions was reversed. My posts on Judge Markey may be reviewed here, here, and here.
3. Mr. Vander Ark is correct that I quoted the Chief Justice in my discussion of the Progressive Insurance case here, and I did not quote Justice Markman's concurrence. So what? Does that somehow delegitimize the point I was making? Am I under some obligation to quote Justice Markman? If so, am I also obligated to quote Justice Marilyn Kelly, who sided with Markey's opinion? And where is Mr. Vander Ark's defense of Judge Markey? She claimed then -- and claims now -- to be a rule of law judge, but in Progressive Insurance, she cast aside clear statutory language in favor of a result that comported with her "sense of justice and fair play." That is not a rule of law methodology; it is the very definition of an empathy judge. Yet, Mr. Vander Ark says nothing, falling back on the notion that her position is "defensible." That's a pretty low bar for someone who wants to be a Supreme Court justice.
So, you be the judge. Have I turned "fiction into fact," as Mr. Vander Ark suggests? If so, how? What exactly have I written that is incorrect?
Let's make things perfectly clear: for me, this is not a personal issue. I favor the rule of law, and I believe strongly, as Bob Young has written, that the "rule of law requires a judge to be subservient to the law itself, not the law to be subservient to the personal views of a judge."
In the cases I have described, Judge Markey has elevated her personal views over the the law. Whether you agree or disagree with her ultimate decisions, this approach, this decisionmaking process, is not the approach and the process followed by rule of law judges. That the results are "defensible" is irrelevant -- the rule of law does not concern itself with results, only with faithfully applying the law as written by the People through their elected representatives.
As I have written, Judge Markey seems like a very nice person. I have no interest in her political donation history or in any of the rumors being circulated about her. This is not personal; this is about job performance and judicial philosophy, period.
I don't know Mr. Vander Ark. Is it significant that his email was paid for by Markey's campaign? I don't think so. His name is on it, and he will have to defend it, regardless of who wrote it or who paid for it. His email is wrong and contains numerous factual errors, as I have outlined above, but I will not attempt to smear him as he has attempted to smear me. Frankly, I have no interest whatsoever in Mr. Vander Ark -- he is not running for anything. My only interest is in a full and frank discussion of the most important issue in this judicial campaign: who will be a rule of law justice on the Michigan Supreme Court?
Let's just stick to the issue. It's not personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment