Progressive Women’s Alliance Dishonest in Michigan Supreme Court Ads

So, today I heard that the Progressive Women’s Alliance of West Michigan was putting out advertisements claiming that Michigan’s Supreme Court is rated worst in the nation, citing a “study by the University of Chicago Law School.”  The PWA, as well as Michigan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kelly, has come out in opposition to Chief Justice Cliff Taylor, who is up for reelection this year (against Diane Hathaway and Robert Roddis), placing much of the blame on that rating on him.

But there’s two major problems with doing that:

  1. This is a working paper that is still under review – that means it hasn’t even made it to the peer review stage yet (if we’re going to be stating working papers as facts, then engineers have a “mindset” that is common with radical Islam and other religious extremists).
  2. This study is terribly out of date.  Although it was released in 2008, it looks back on the Court from 1998-2000.  At that point, Justices Robert Young, Jr. and Stephen Markman weren’t on the bench.  James Brickley and Patricia Boyle were both on the bench during part of that time.  The Chief Justices during that period were Elizabeth Weaver and Conrad Mallet, Jr. (both liberals) (sorry – I thought I changed that, but apparently I forgot to.  Weaver was considered a Republican, but later began becoming more and more liberal and now would be described as a moderate with liberal leanings.  Mallet was a liberal.  Thanks to Independent for Hathaway for pointing out my mistake.).  Taylor didn’t even become Chief Justice until 2005!  So how PWA and Kelly can blame Taylor is beyond me.  The court hardly had the same makeup back then as it does now, and this DEFINITELY cannot be blamed on Justice Taylor, because he wasn’t Chief Justice back then!

This is just another example of lies from liberals in Michigan.  It is CRUCIAL that we reelect Cliff Taylor so that we can continue to have the great Supreme Court that we have now.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

19 Responses to “Progressive Women’s Alliance Dishonest in Michigan Supreme Court Ads”

  1. Independent for Hathaway Says:

    DON’T BE FOOLED, the Michigan Supreme Court right now is not great. Cliff Taylor’s record is very poor. He consistently rules in favor of insurance companies. His ill-founded rulings have hurt, for example, women, minorities, hunters, those injured by the misconduct of others, the environment, etc. etc.

    The individual who posted this is trying to fool you. He likely works for an insurance company or is Cliff Taylor himself. For example, he calls Justice Weaver a “liberal.” In truth, she was a GOP nominee. And, look what she had to say about Cliff Taylor in an open memo:

    It is necessary that I dissent from the election of Chief Justice Clifford Taylor as Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Chief Justice Taylor has proven that he cannot properly lead the Michigan Supreme Court at this time. The people of Michigan deserve to have a Chief Justice who will conduct the people’s business in an orderly, professional, and fair manner.
    This dissent to the election of Chief Justice Taylor as Chief Justice reveals only the “tip of the iceberg” of the misuse and abuse of power and the repeated disorderly, unprofessional and unfair performance and conduct of the people’s judicial business by the majority of four, Chief Justice Taylor, and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman.
    I believe it is my duty and right to inform the public of repeated abuses and/or misconduct. The majority of four’s suppression of dissent, and attempts to suppress dissent, mishandling of administrative duties, and repeated disorderly, unprofessional, and unfair conduct are matters of legitimate public concern.
    Over the past year and longer, the majority of four has advanced a policy toward greater secrecy and less accountability. I strongly believe that it is past time to let sunlight into the Michigan Supreme Court. An efficient and impartial judiciary is “ill served by casting a cloak of secrecy around the operations of the courts.”

  2. inkslwc Says:

    I’m a student, I don’t work for an insurrance company, and no, I’m not Cliff Taylor.

    As for calling her a liberal – that was a mistake that I had meant to change when I first wrote this post – thanks for pointing that out.

  3. Independent for Hathaway Says:

    I can understand, from what I’ve read on the internet the race is getting heated. At the end of the day, however, we all still have to work with each other here in Michigan, and accordingly, your latest post is very well received. Thank you.

  4. cateye2502 Says:

    I cannot believe that people from Michigan are actually still standing behind the republican party! I have lived in Michigan my entire life, tried to make a home here and a decent living, and am now facing bankruptcy thanks to free trade! HALF of my income has been lost to overseas companies! I did not buy a house out of my income range, I do not waste my money and I attempt to raise my own food just to keep us fed through the winter. Michigan’s answer to keeping people at work is to repair the roads! That will keep the county employees working at least – but what about the rest of us? Where is the money coming from? From those of us that now have no equity in our homes and those of us that owe more than the house is worth! It is time that Michigan kick the Republicans out of office and I for one will not be voting for Mr. Taylor regardless of what is printed out there. Any one with half a mind can see that the republicans have not done anything for us except get us deeper in debt and we are now suffering the consequences. And before you think “this is a democrat talking” think again — I do not promote any party and feel that all parties should be abolished and that the elected officials of this country should start working for the people that elected them and not whoever has the biggest check.

  5. inkslwc Says:

    Because the state of Michigan is controlled by Republicans. Blame it on the Republican Governor and Republican controlled House – who sponsored that bill to raise service taxes (for those of you who don’t know about Michgan politics – I’m being sarcastic. Both our Governor and House of Representatives are Democrats/Democrat controlled). The Supreme Court has little to do with our economy, and I find it interesting that you blame Republicans when we only control the State Senate.

  6. Independent for Hathaway Says:

    For what it’s worth, most of the Republican-voting attorneys I know are pulling for Judge Hathaway. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, you should at a minimum read sone of the decisions of the current Michigan Supreme Court for yourself. You might be surpised. They can be found free online at:

    For example, look up, read, and ask yourself: Do I agree with these opinions?

    Haynie v State, 468 Mich 302 (2003). The Court’s decision causes women to lose work place protections. Harassment of female coworkers that is gender-based, but not sexual in nature, is no longer actionable in Michigan.

    Garg v Macomb Mental Health, 472 Mich 263 (2005). The Court reversed decades of law and overruled the continuing violations doctrine, allowing an employer to escape liability for sexual harassment because it had been going on for a long time.

    Magee v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 108 (2005). The Court found that even though the plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination and retaliation were filed within three years of the date she resigned, the suit was too late because none of the alleged conduct occurred within the three years before filing the complaint.

  7. inkslwc Says:

    Look – it’s not like I’m happy with how those cases came out, but you can’t just ignore the statute of limitations. If you don’t like the statute of limitations, change the law, not the Court. (I didn’t actually read the opinions, but that’s what it seemed like from your summaries. I’m off to bed now – I have class in 4 1/2 hours, so I’ll try to read the stuff tomorrow, but if I misunderstood what you were saying, please say so, and I’ll discuss the opinions more. Sorry – I know that’s a crappy answer, but I really do have to go to bed).

  8. Independent for Hathaway Says:

    Your point is well taken, but Justice Taylor seems to also play the same word games he says he doesn’t. Look at the Nestle Waters case where he (and the gang of four) ruled that “any person” does not mean “any person.” How can there be any real debate about what that means? I think that’s what has frustrated me into leaning toward Hathaway – where normally I would probably tend to lean toward the more conservative candidate, too. I just don’t like to see things get too one sided, and for better or worse, that’s this attorneys opinion of what we have right now. I would argue the same result if the court were too far left.

    See Nestle Waters is at:

    inkslwc, I respect your opinion, and would like to know what you think of that decision.
    Ps. You must be a student. 2:55 a.m.?? I remember those days.

  9. Darrin Says:

    This article is less than honest to it’s own members. Here is a list of the current justices and when they started on the Court.

    * Clifford W. Taylor, 1997-present, Chief Justice 2005-present
    * Michael F. Cavanagh, 1982-present, Chief Justice 1991-1995
    * Elizabeth A. Weaver, 1994-present, Chief Justice 1999-2000
    * Marilyn Jean Kelly, 1996-present
    * Maura D. Corrigan, 1998-present, Chief Justice 2001-2004
    * Robert P. Young Jr., 1999-present
    * Stephen J. Markman, 1999-present

    Everyone should note that only Justices Young and Markman were not on the Court in 1998. But in 1999 and 2000 they were in this court.

    In addition, former Chief Justice Weaver is a Republican. The only reason she is being singled out is due to the fact that she does not like the agenda of the four (un)justices that are pushing the Republican agenda and forming a majority that favors large corporations and insurance companies. She wants a fair and just court for the citizens of this state. This current right wing agenda is supposed to be good for this state, but we can all see that this policy has further eroded the economy of this state and it is not keeping businesses here no matter how favorable these decisions are to those interests and their pocketbooks. There is no accountability for a person or entities actions or lack thereof

    Remember your history people, Hitler gained power by sucking up to the corporations that funded him, ultimately giving him his power to do what he did, and we all saw where that led.

    Here are 25 decisions that should make everyone think about who to vote for in this election. Most of the public has no knowledge of these decisions and the impact it could have on them, their family or friends, until they are injured:

    Below is just a sampling of anti-citizen pro-big insurance decisions made by Cliff Taylor; it is a long and troubling list. Here are my least favorite 25:

    1. Lugo v Ameritech, 464 Mich 512 (2001). The Taylor Court adopts an “open and obvious” doctrine in slip and fall cases. If you can see it and you fall on it, you lose. Forget that Michigan is a comparative negligence State. In slip and fall, only the plaintiff’s negligence counts. The defendant can be negligent as hell and it doesn’t count. The court actually states that no typical person could ever be seriously injured from falling in a pothole or on a sidewalk. Tell that to Dr. Atkins or Ed MacMahon!

    2. Reed v Breton, 475 Mich 531 (2006). The Taylor court ignores and overrules decades of common law that allowed circumstantial evidence to prove an illegal sale of alcohol in a drunk driving case. Defendant admitted to drinking 20 beers before he killed someone while driving at 100 mph and had a .21 blood alcohol level, but the bar that served him was excused under this new standard. Is that justice?

    3. Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004). This Taylor Court decision denies seriously injured auto accident victims from recovery in accidents caused by negligent and even drunk drivers.

    4 & 5. Roberts v Mecosta General Hospital, 466 Mich 57 (2002), after remand 470 Mich 679 (2004) and Burton v Reed City Hospital Corp, 471 Mich 745 (2005) The Taylor Court denies court access to persons injured by medical negligence based on minor technicalities.

    6. Waltz v Wyse, 469 Mich 642 (2004). The Taylor Court, suddenly, without precedent, and without warning, changes the way the wrongful death statute of limitations is calculated and denies the relatives of persons killed by medical negligence access to court.

    7. Nawrocki v Macomb Co Road Commn, 463 Mich 143 (2000). The Taylor Court virtually eliminates governmental responsibility to maintain public roads.

    8. Cameron v ACIA, 476 Mich 55( 2006). The Taylor Court, despite existing law to the contrary, shortens the statute of limitations to one year for minors and brain injured persons in auto accidents in claims seeking no-fault benefits, screwing innocent, seriously injured, kids out of needed and justified benefits.

    9. Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare System, 465 Mich 53 (2001). This one is shocking even for Taylor! The Taylor Court holds that an injured person who dies, must die within the two year statute of limitations or the deceased’s heirs are denied the right to sue for his loss! Can you believe this nonsense?

    10. Zsigo v Hurley Medical Center, 475 Mich 215 (2006). A hospital employee rapes a

    helpless patient in the hospital and the Taylor Court holds that a hospital has no responsibility to protect patients from employees who engage in intentional or criminal acts.

    11. McKim v Forward Lodging Inc, 474 Mich 947 (2005). The Taylor Court decides that an EMT could not sue for injuries received while trying to assist injured patient.

    12. Robinson v City of Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (2000). The Taylor Court excuses the government from any liability when it injures persons so long as they can prove that someone else was also

    partly at fault.

    13. MacDonald v PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001). The Taylor Court decides that businesses have no duty to protect customers from dangers until they see an immediate risk of harm to a customer and their only duty is to call the police.

    14. Garg v Macomb Mental Health, 472 Mich 263 (2005). The Taylor Court overrules precedent and allows employers to escape liability for sexual harassment if it has been going on for a long time.

    15. Michalski v Bar-Levav, 463 Mich 723 (2001). The Taylor Court eliminates the rights of handicapped workers to safe and reasonable working conditions.

    16. Griffith v State Farm, 472 Mich 521 (2005). The Taylor Court holds that there is no requirement to pay for food for a quadriplegic who chooses to live with a guardian rather than in an institution. Do you see the distinction?

    17. Haynie v State, 468 Mich 302 (2003). The Taylor Court decides that harassment of female coworkers that is gender-based, but not sexual in nature, is no longer actionable.

    18. Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562 (2005). This Taylor Court decision allows

    Michigan no- fault insurers to avoid paying claims if it waits long enough before processing them. I guess if you screw people around for a long enough time, you win!

    19. Greene v AP Products Ltd., 475 Mich 502 (2006). The Taylor Court decides that a bottle of hair oil did not require a warning that the contents could be deadly and should be kept out of the reach of children.

    20. Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 472 Mich 408 (2005). The Taylor Court decides that there was insufficient notice of workplace harassment, despite that fact that plaintiff notified two supervisors and filed numerous grievances against the alleged harasser.

    21. Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749 (2004). The Taylor Court overturns a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff because, according to dissenting Michigan Supreme Court Justices, Taylor and other majority justices disliked the plaintiff’s attorney.

    22. Magee v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 108 (2005). The Taylor Court rules that even though the plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination and retaliation were filed within three years of the date she resigned, the suit was too late because none of the alleged conduct occurred within the three years before filing the complaint.

    23. Sington v Chrysler Corporation, 467 Mich 144 (2002).The Taylor Court consults a dictionary and overrules the existing Workers Compensation definition of “disability”, overturning the statutory definition and making it far more difficult to be compensated for a work place injury.

    24. Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72 (2006). A quadriplegic could not pursue justice because the Taylor Court holds that the shoulder of a roadway is not part of the “improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel” which eliminates the government’s duty to maintain them free of serious defects. In Hanson v Mecosta Co Road Comm, 465 Mich 492 (2002) the Taylor Court similarly holds that the state has no liability for the defective design of a public highway.

    25. Henry v Dow Chemical, 473 Mich 63 (2006). The Taylor Court decides that people negligently exposed to carcinogens are precluded from bringing claims because they didn’t get cancer quickly enough (some cancers take years to manifest). Similarly, in Creech v Foot Memorial, 474 Mich 1135 (2006), the Taylor Court denies the claims of multiple patients who had been negligently exposed to an infection while receiving medical treatment because they had not develop symptoms yet (which may take years to develop).

    Think about who you vote for this November and how it is going to impact someone’s life, possibly someone you know and love.

  10. inkslwc Says:

    Independent – I don’t have time to read that right now, but I will get to it later tonight (yes, I’m a college student).

    Darrin. How was I less than honest? I clearly state: “At that point, Justices Robert Young, Jr. and Stephen Markman weren’t on the bench. James Brickley and Patricia Boyle were both on the bench during part of that time.” I clearly stated that Brickley and Boyle were on during part of the 1998-2000 court. I’m sorry – did you want me to put years?

    As to your cases:

    1. It’s the Corrigan Court, not Taylor Court, and all the Justices ruled the same. None dissented. Weaver herself wrote a concurring opinion.

    2. Only Kelly dissented (Cavanagh didn’t participate in that decision). So Weaver joined Taylor’s opinion.

    3. Again, Corrigan was the Chief Justice here, not Taylor. And I agree with that decision. As the majority clearly states, “the trial courts properly determined that plaintiffs did not establish a serious impairment of body function.”

    4. I couldn’t find any opinion from the SC on Roberts v Mecosta General Hospital, but from reading the Court of Appeals opinion it’s right. It’s never nice when something is overturned on a technicality, but that’s the law. We can’t do it with murderers, and we can’t do it with lawsuits either.

    5. Again, only Kelly dissented here.

    6. Again, I couldn’t find any SC opinion on this.

    7. Again, I couldn’t find any SC opinion on this case.

    I’m done wasting my time. So far, this list has been accurate 2 times out of 7, and both of those times, the dissenting side has been Kelly. Find me some times where the Taylor disagrees with 2 or 3 justices (and where it’s actually the Taylor Court), and then we can discuss stuff. But I refuse to waste my time researching stuff thatthe guy who compiled this list didn’t even research.

  11. Independent for Hathaway Says:

    I wasnt hazing you for being a college student. You mentioned that in an earlier post, and I was just noting that only a college student would be up at that hour of the evening/morning. I used to be there, too, a long time ago. Now go to be much earlier. Such is the cycle of life.

  12. inkslwc Says:


    Oh, no, I know you weren’t. Sorry I didn’t get back to you last night – this weekend was Central/Western Michigan Weekend (rivalry game), so I was out with friends (not drinking – I’m a law and order conservative – and underage drinking and college students drinking is a WHOLE other topic for another date).

    As for Nestle Waters:

    I disagree with the Court’s opinion. MEPA clearly states: “The attorney general or any person may maintain an action in the circuit court having jurisdiction where the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur for declaratory and equitable relief against any person for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”

    That was upheld in NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION V CLEVELAND CLIFFS IRON CO, and it is my interpretation of MEPA that any person does in fact mean any person. I understand where the majority is coming from, but I staunchly disagree with the conclusion that any person implies some hidden fact that that person must be affected by the actions of the defendant (in this case, Nestle Waters).

    That being said, I’ll never agree with any court or justice, and although cases like this were ruled (in my opinion incorrectly), I still generally tend to agree with Taylor much more than Hathaway.

    But I do thank you for bringing this up. It makes me a little less enthusiastic about Taylor than I was before, but again, I’m never going to agree with a justice 100% of the time.

  13. Independent for Hathaway Says:

    There was an interesting discussion on NPR last week between a Republican attorney that I know and respect named Tim Smith out of Traverse City who supported and raised $ for Justice Taylor when he was on the Michigan Court of Appeals but now supports Judge Hathaway and Patrick Wright of the Mackinac Center who used to work for the court i.e., justice Taylor and still supports him. Some nice points and counterpoints. Here’s the link if you are interested:
    Oh, and in closing, I agree with you that no Justice or court gets it right every time, and that no one is perfect. I don’t agree with all of the decisions by the two Justices on the Court who are thought of as more liberal, either.

  14. Independent for Hathaway Says:

    Just wondering if you had a chance to listen to any of the NPR interviews, and what you thought.

  15. inkslwc Says:

    Not yet – I found out over the weekend that I have shingles, and I’ve been swamped with campaign stuff and other election stuff. I promise that I will listen to that tonight.

    Sorry about that.

  16. inkslwc Says:

    A Republican trial lawyer – that sounds suspicious.

    But seriously, on to the radio clip.

    1. I agree that Nestle Waters was a poor decision.

    2. I actually saw the guy who heads up the Detroit Free Press editorial section tonight at a forum (I can’t even try to remember his name). And he was saying that this was one of the few Republicans they’ve endorsed, but noted that it was a lesser of two evils endorsement.

    3. As for the Chrysler harassment suit: He left out that it was ruled that way because she filed the case after the statute of limitations had expired, which is WHY they ruled against it. Leaving that out puts the case in a different context (similar to politicians saying, “My opponent voted against cutting taxes” but leaving off the fact that the bill had tacked onto it a section that would give amnesty to illegal immigrants).

    4. As for calling the court during the survey “Taylor’s Court,” that’s highly inaccurate, as I’ve stated above.

  17. Independent for Hathaway Says:

    The Free Press article with the endorsement is entitled “Despite his agenda, retain Chief Justice Clifford Taylor.” My personal opinion is that his agenda is too far in favor of the insurance industry. I guess we must agree to disagree. Good chatting with you, though. Sorry to hear about the shingles. They can be caused/exacerbated by stress, so take it easy.

  18. Vote4Change Says:

    I’m voting for Judge Diane Hathaway everyone!!!

  19. Jc Greenland Says:

    Pretty great post, definitely enlightening stuff. Never ever considered I’d discover the information I want in this article. I have been looking everywhere in the web for some time now and was starting to get discouraged. Luckily, I happened across your blog and acquired precisely what I had been hunting for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: