Conservative majority is altering court's methods (MI Supremes have twice the brains of SCOTUS)

Four justices who joined the Michigan Supreme Court since 1997 form a solid, conservative majority, a Free Press analysis of cases decided in 2002-03 shows.

Chief Justice Maura Corrigan, and Justices Stephen Markman, Clifford Taylor and Robert Young Jr., all nominated by the Republican Party, formed the core of the majority opinion on almost every decision, the analysis found.

"In the court majority's view: the new court is more likely to follow the Legislature's intent when it wrote laws and less likely to impose its own policy preferences."

The amount of coffee and marijuana seeds being spilled in the halls of leftwing law schools, Harvard, Yale, and U. of M. ... well, you could hear a 100lb burlap bag drop!

"Four justices who joined the Michigan Supreme Court since 1997 form a solid, conservative majority, a Free Press analysis of cases decided in 2002-03 shows.

Chief Justice Maura Corrigan, and Justices Stephen Markman, Clifford Taylor and Robert Young Jr., all nominated by the Republican Party, formed the core of the majority opinion on almost every decision, the analysis found.

Their ascendancy -- after nearly 40 years of liberal and Democratic control of the court -- has produced a significant shift in the way the court works. And sharp disagreements about what it all means.

In the court majority's view: the new court is more likely to follow the Legislature's intent when it wrote laws and less likely to impose its own policy preferences.

Michigan courts formerly had "almost divorced themselves from the statutes, from constraints of any kind. Many times, they were just nakedly doing policy from the bench," Young said in a recent interview."

Woo hoo! It can be done!! Vote the RATs out!!

This case, just out of the MI Court of Appeals: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/032304/22562.pdf

While the right to possess arms is acknowledged within the Michigan Constitution, this right is subject to limitation. Jurisprudence in this state has consistently maintained the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. This Court has determined that 'the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police power.' The state has a legitimate interest in limiting access to weapons. It is recognized that public housing authorities have a legitimate interest in maintaining a safe environment for their tenants. Infringements on legitimate rights of tenants can be justified by regulations imposed to serve compelling state interests which cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. Restrictions on the right to possess weapons in the environment and circumstances described by plaintiff are both in furtherance of a legitimate interest to protect its residents and a reasonable exercise of police power. This is particularly true given defendant's failure to make any allegation she feels physically threatened or in danger as a resident of plaintiff's complex necessitating her possession of a weapon to defend herself.

will test this conservative majority's resolve...

http://volokh.com/2004_03_28_volokh_archive.html#108066895696874643

Hat tip to www.volokh.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.