Weaver accuses Taylor of meddling in judicial appointment

by: Eric B.

Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 11:00:00 AM EDT

Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver, who made national headlines last year in a very public spat with fellow Republican-nominated justices on the state Supreme Court, has again criticized the state high court's conduct, specifically saying that Chief Justice Clifford Taylor pressured a nominee for chief justice of the 37th District Court to withdraw her name from consideration ... before justices had officially begun deliberations on who to choose.

At the October 8, 2008 administrative conference at approximately 10:20 a.m., Chief Justice Taylor announced that there was only one candidate remaining for the Chief Judge position. At that point, Justice Kelly asked if anyone knew why Judge Faunce had withdrawn. Chief Justice Taylor explained that he was of the view that there were four (4) votes for Judge Chmura, and that he had decided to call Judge Faunce to inform her that there were four votes for Judge Chmura and that Judge Faunce was welcome to withdraw or stay, but that he did not want her to be embarrassed because there were four votes for Judge Chmura and she would lose. Chief Justice Taylor related that Judge Faunce told him that she would withdraw her name and she did so.
Chief Justice Taylor’s action of telling Judge Faunce that there were four votes for Judge Chmura and that Judge Faunce was welcome to withdraw or stay, before the justices had ever met to discuss and vote on the chief judge appointment, is another example of his unprofessional, improper, and unfair conduct as chief justice.1

Chief Justice Taylor’s actions effectively interfered with the chief judge appointment process because what he told Judge Faunce during his telephone call caused her to withdraw her name before the justices of this Court had even met to discuss the appointment.

Chief Justice Taylor has too often mismanaged the business of this Court. Harmful to the proper functioning of the justice system is Chief Justice Taylor’s inclination to act secretly, not openly and transparently with respect to the administrative business of this Court. Administrative appointments of chief judges—judges who are elected public officials—constitute public administrative business, not personnel matters. Judges are not employees of the Michigan Supreme Court. They are elected officials of heir counties or jurisdictions and are effectively only employees of the people of their ounties or jurisdictions within the state of Michigan. This inclination toward secrecy lso deprives the people of the information they need to properly make judgments on the ustices’ performance of their duties. The Supreme Court should not be a secret club run or the benefit of justices and judges.

Faunce is a former Republican lawmaker, and Weaver said that she would have had Weaver's vote. That opportunity was denied Weaver because Taylor had pressured Faunce into withdrawing her name from consideration ... because she didn't have the votes, indicating that the man ultimately named chief justice of the 37th District Court -- a former Engler appointee named John M. Chmura -- had the support 4-vote bloc of justices Taylor, Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman, and Robert Young -- the so-called "Gang of Four" most of whom were themselves appointees under the Engler administration.

Update! ... The new chief justice in action.

James Conrad, the Warren/Center Line court administrator arrested in January on suspicion of drunken driving, was fired Friday by the district court’s new chief judge.

Shortly after receiving official notice Friday that the Michigan Supreme Court had appointed him as the new chief jurist of the 37th District Court, Judge John Chmura terminated the longtime court supervisor.

It certainly sounds fishy to me, and based on the story I could see where a reasonable person could conclude that the guy was maybe being shown some favoritism by his colleagues, but then you come to this part.

In perhaps one of the most heated judicial campaigns to date, Chmura in 1996 defeated Conrad for a 4-year term on the Warren/Center Line bench.

So, he argues that he fired the guy to protect public confidence in the court system, yet the guy he fired was his opponent in a hotly-contested judicial election a few years back.  It's the kind of thing that simply undermines your credibility.

Clifford Taylor cleared the decks for this guy's candidacy and was criticized by one of his own colleagues for doing so in a way that undermined the process ... and the guy's first act is to fire a former political opponent under the guise of promoting public confidence in the judicial system.

There's no actual, concrete evidence that anyone went out of their way to violate judical ethics or engaged in political paybacks, only that a reasonable person could read these things and maybe conclude that it all took place.  All I'm saying is that sometimes perception is the same thing as reality.