In the past couple months two friends, a lawyer (yes, lawyers can be friends, too) and a journalists (yes, a journalist can be a friend, also) have written about the judicial selection process, one in a book, the other in his weekly column.
Bob Parenti is the attorney. He served Oxford governments for over 20 years before moving to Florida and joining the Willie Gary law firm.
The journalist is Richard (Dick) Milliman, who owned both daily and weekly newspapers in Michigan from Three Rivers to Gaylord to Rogers City, and still owns some.
Both their accounts of how we select our judges make me so mad I could just spit. It isn’t as if I didn’t know the selections are political, it’s just that I put it far back in my mind.
In the preface to his book, The Giant Killers, Bob asks: ‘Is the American system of justice out of hand? Or is the society it tries to serve out of hand??
He goes on to write that greed plays a big role in lawsuits, as does our worship of winning, often for money. Yet the vast majority of lawsuits, estimated at over 95 percent, never get to trial. Still the system is overworked, understaffed and ill-prepared to deal with the massive volume of complaints brought to the halls of justice each day.
Lawyers are the gunfighters of yore, only lawyers take money instead of human life, Bob writes. He also mentions the love/hate relationship we have with lawyers.
Now, closer to my main irritant. There is an old law school adage: the A students become trial lawyers, the B students become in-house company lawyers and the C students become judges.
Michigan judges appear on the ballot as nonpartisans, yet they are positioned on the ballot by the two major political parties. Republicans and Democrats pick the candidates then dangle them out to voters as nonpartisan.
Too, a wealthy, influential person makes a substantial contribution to one political party or candidate for high office and quietly suggests he would be pleased if his daughter would receive the next judicial office that becomes available.
Our judicial selection system stinks.
– – – 0 – – –
Dick writes: Court decisions: I have always marveled at the number of split decisions handed down by appellate courts at every level. How can nine intelligent, experienced and knowledgeable justices hear the same arguments and read the same language, and still come up with so many divided decisions on the meaning of the words and their application?
Michigan, too: In the Michigan Supreme Court, outcome cases often depend on whether political conservatives or liberals hold the majority of the seven state court seats at any particular time. Aren’t the words of the laws the same? If so, how can the application of those words to an actual case be so different in the decisions of individual judges? The reasons, of course, are the political and social leanings of those wearing the robes.
Electing judges: Electing the supreme court justices, and other judges for that matter, lends itself to the sort of court system where justices sometimes seem to go to the highest bidder. The question is not only one of fairness; it also is a question of the appearance of fairness. Both are important for public confidence in our judicial system.
– – – 0 – – –
Back to me.
Which way do I spit?
Toward Washington, Lansing, our county seat, township, city or the mirror?