Evidence suggests Young lying about N-bomb, G.R. Press phones in endorsement

by: Eric B.

Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 15:41:51 PM EDT

Back when she left the state high court, there was rumor that Betty Weaver would spend the next two months going around the state, trashing Robert Young wherever she could find a microphone. She didn't do that. She did something better. She unleashed this campaign season's only real October surprise, that Young in conference had dropped the N-bomb. In response, Young didn't apologize for showing poor judgement. Instead, he blamed Betty Young for talking about things said during a conference and said that his use of the word was part of an "impassioned plea." In response to that, Betty Weaver has released a transcript of the call, which if accurate means that Robert Young lied. In response, instead of again taking the opportunity to apologize, Young again got mad at Weaver for recording a phone call and has suggested that it violated his rights.

Justice Robert P. Young (RPY): “THE SALE WAS PENDING…”

 Justice Michael F. Cavanagh (MFC): “VIVIANO’S SON WAS RUNNING…”

Chief Justice Clifford W. Taylor (CWT): “…ANDREA FERRARA.  ISN’T THAT A SCREAM? … YES, THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID.  MOVING ON…”

Justice Robert P. Young (RPY): “WATCH OUT FOR THOSE N—–S  OUT THERE. (Laughter)  REALLY . . .”

Chief Justice Clifford W. Taylor (CWT): “…WE DIDN’T DO THE DEATH PENALTY…”

Justice Michael F. Cavanagh (MFC): “SHE HAS TO MOVE FROM DOWN RIVER OUT TO MACOMB.”

It wasn't part of an impassioned plea stemming from decades of racial abuse or something else that might excuse its use. Robert Young used the N-bomb while cracking a joke. And, instead of coming clean, he again got mad.

None of this appeared to matter to the Grand Rapids Press when it endorsed Young for re-election this morning. What mattered to them? It doesn't appear that much interested the paper at all excapt that they were going to endorse Robert Young and Mary Beth Kelly and by gar and by gum they were going to endorse Robert Young and Mary Beth Kelly.

Justices serve eight-year terms and run as nonpartisans. However, they are nominated by political parties. Partisanship on the Court has in recent years been especially sharp-edged, with personal shots flying between the warring factions, sometimes in snide footnotes in decisions. That divisiveness has undermined public trust in the judiciary. No matter who is elected, we would look for that troubling dynamic to change.

One of those justices that made snide comments in footnotes was none other than Robert Young. The Grand Rapids Press very much wants the snide foot notes to stop and the undermining of public trust in the courts it engenders, and the paper wants it to stop so badly that it endorsed one of the people chiefly responsible.

We have not agreed with every decision from Justice Young. He and the court’s conservative bloc have at times been too protective of business interests to the detriment of individual citizens. However, in the main Justice Young has been a thoughtful and intellectual presence on the Supreme Court, and a counterweight to liberal activism. He has earned another term.

Got that? The courts conservative bloc have too often sided with business interests to the detriment of actual people. Despite the fact that the paper thinks this is bad, they think he deserves another term.

Why is this? The paper decries liberal activist judges without actually offering an example of liberal judge activism. In other words, they don't like the sniping that Young brings to the court, and they think he leans too far towards protecting business interests (which itself suggests they believe he is an activist conservative justice), but because of an undefined straw man, they think he deserves another term on the bench.