Maura Corrigan on short list for Supreme Court

Stingray: A Blog for Salty Christians ^ | Septermber 30, 2005 | Michael McCullough

[DallasMike]

Maura Corrigan has again surfaced in the buzz as being on the short list to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. U.S. News and World Report describes Corrigan as having "just what some Republicans are looking for: practical experience away from the bench and a firm commitment to judicial restraint." She graduated from Marygrove College in Detroit and then received her law degree cum laude from the University of Detroit Law School in 1973. Corrigan served as a law clerk for a year, then as an assisting prosecuting attorney for the state of, then worked for 10 years in the U.S. Attorney's office in Detroit. She went to the private sector for a while and then in 1992 was appointed to the State Court of Appeals in 1992 by Michigan Governor John Engler. She won election to the Michigan Supreme Court in 1998 and served as Chief Justice from 2001 to 2004. U.S. News and World Report says of Corrigan:  

Since 1999, four of the seven justices on the court, including Corrigan, have strongly emphasized their commitment to following legislative intent through "textual analysis," a philosophy of judicial restraint championed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. In a 2004 article, Corrigan criticized activist judges for relying on an "antidemocratic premise that judges just know better . . . . The constant temptation in judging is to be expedient, to reach out and fix what appears to be wrong. I know that I was not elected as chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court to be a philosopher-king."

The court's four conservative justices make up the core of the court's 5-2 Republican majority that almost always prevails. The split on the court has led to many heated dissents from the court's two liberal justices. Some criminal-defense lawyers say the court's philosophy has made it difficult for them to win appellate cases, yet other observers say the court's rulings have become much more predictable and consistent since 1999.

"The court is a court that sees its role as having a more limited perspective than the courts in the 1970s and 1980s because it gives great deference to legislative intent," said Patricia Boyle, a former justice on the Michigan Supreme Court.

Petoskey News-Review quotes Corrigan as saying, "Fundamentally, a majority of the court believes a court's role is to interpret the law, not to make it." She continued:  "This is my concern with the philosophy of judicial activists, because an activist approach rests on an anti-democratic premise. The thinking is that judges just know better - that we are somehow smarter and wiser than the people we govern and serve - that we on the bench are the new philosopher-kings."

Nothing is known of Corrigan's personal or legal views on abortion. It is quite possible that her strict constructionist views and her strong deference to the legislative branch would lead her to vote pro-life, but conservatives deserve better than a stealth candidate. We control the Presidency, the House, and the Senate and we should not be ashamed of putting up a candidate who agrees with our views. Corrigan may very well be a good justice but we simply do not know enough about her to comfortably make that judgment.

[DallasMike]

       

        <-------- Visit Stingray blogsite for conservative Christian commentary

[samadams2000]

I want a head banging conservative...Is she that?

[KoRn]

Much spam I sense in you!

[SandRat]

I brought the

The is gonna go nuts!

[359Henrie]

I hope so, I want the fight.

[sourcery]

It may be that whoever replaces O'Connor will in fact vote to repeal Roe vs. Wade (not that I care, one way or the other.) But Bush will not nominate, and the Senate will not confirm, anyone as a Supreme Court Justice who openly advocates the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Get over it. Deal with reality, not fantasy.

[WriteOn]

won't fly. not enough to replace an irish lady with an irish lady.

we need a brown person. /sarcasm

[Ol' Sparky]

You better start caring that the justice appointed is an originalist determined to overturn Roe. If they aren't, the GOP will see millions of voters stay home (the four million Karl Rove stated stayed home in 2000 and than some). Live with that fact and don't whine if the Democrats get into power and do something you don't like.

No conservative could support Roe, BTW, as it is the ulimate example of judicial activism.

[Palladin]

Well, she's darn cute. We could use a pretty Irish face in Supremeland.

[sourcery]

You better start caring that the justice appointed is an originalist determined to overturn Roe.

I strongly care whether any Supreme Court Justice is committed to being a judge, and not a philosopher-king, and is committed to interpreting the Constitution the way James Madison or Thomas Jefferson would have. There's a whole host of past Court decisions that absolutely must be overturned to satisfy Messrs. Madison and Jefferson, one of the most important of which is Wickard vs. Filburn.

But I'm not expecting to be satisfied by the next nominee in this respect--because I know the difference between fantasy and reality.

If they aren't, the GOP will see millions of voters stay home (the four million Karl Rove stated stayed home in 2000 and than some). Live with that fact and don't whine if the Democrats get into power and do something you don't like.

You may be correct. However, your warning about what may happen should Democrats get the White House (and perhaps also Congress) appears to be based on the false assumption that I might have some power to change the political reality in Washington with respect to who is nominatable and/or confirmable. But I have no such power, and so your warning is wasted on me. But perhaps you meant for some other audience to heed this warning?

No conservative could support Roe, BTW, as it is the ulimate example of judicial activism.

The only judicial activism apparent in the Roe decision involves two conclusions made by the idiot Justices who rendered it:

1. The ridiculous-on-its-face assertion that the right to privacy in any way makes the criminalization of abortion Unconstitutional
2. The presumption that the definition of when life begins, or whether or not a fetus is a legal person with a right to life, had ever been left by the legislature as a matter to be decided by judges (or that judges would be the proper deciders of such a question in any case)

Personally, I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that conception does not instantly create a person with a right to life. But I also recognize that it's not my call, and that such a question must properly be decided by a legislature--and given the words of the Federal Constitution, the legislature in question must be a State legislature.

[Dan from Michigan]

Conservative majority is altering court's methods(referring to Michigan's Supreme Court)

Corrigan would be a great pick for the country, and a mixed pick for Michigan. While I'll be glad to see her go to SCOTUS, she'll be missed here, especially when Granholm gets to appoint her replacement.

The good news with Granholm's replacement, is that we can vote the clown out in 2006.

[DallasMike]

Well, she's darn cute. We could use a pretty Irish face in Supremeland.

She's a widow if you're interested and available...

[DallasMike]

Corrigan would be a great pick for the country, and a mixed pick for Michigan.

Do you think that, by nature, she would rule cases in favor of pro-lifers?

[DallasMike]

Much spam I sense in you!

Much information, too!

[Dan from Michigan]

She hasn't done an abortion case, but I think this is about as safe of pick on that issue as can be.

She's Catholic, went to Catholic colleges, is a member of the Federalist Society, and is HATED by People for the unAmerican Way.

I don't remember for sure, but I believe she was endorsed by Right to Life when she was up for election.

[jeltz25]

Corrigan is one of the few candidates who admits to being an originalist, Roberts sure didn't. She proudly states that she follows the jurisprudence of Justice Scalia and wrote a 20 page law review article where she says how great he is. I'd say she's pretty originalist, and if she admires Scalia as much as she does, she's a pretty good bet to overturn Roe.

[DallasMike]

...HATED by People for the unAmerican Way.

The only way those yahoos would support is if she personally performed third-trimester abortions in her spare time.

There is much to recommend her on paper but I wish that she had had at least some life issue cases come her way.

[RTINSC]

John Ashcroft for USSC?

"I believe Roe v. Wade as an original matter was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to abortion. But I well understand that the role of attorney general is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it. I accept Roe and Casey as the settled law of the land. If confirmed as attorney general, I will follow the law in this area and in all other areas. The Supreme Court’s decisions on this have been multiple, they have been recent and they have been emphatic."

[sourcery]

John Ashcroft for USSC?

The Left has demonized Ashcroft to such an extent they'd never be able to vote for him. Their base would revolt.

[BillyBoy]

Presidents are usually elevated from Governorships, I have been saying for years that we should pick SCOTUS judges from state supreme courts instead of some longtime federal appointee inside the beltway that has a paper trail a mile a long for the RATs to demonize. Corrigan would be an excellent choice, IMO. Definitely fits the criteria I would have looked at in the first place. If I had been in Bush's place, I would have probably filled O'Connor's slot promptly with a judge like Garza or Cantero (FL Supreme Court), elevated Thomas to CJ to replace Rehnquist, and picked someone like Corrigan or Congresswoman Hart to replace Thomas as Associate Justice.