DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Transparency Rule Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Transparency Rule Of JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND THE RULE OF LAW 23rd Annual Forum for State Appellate Court Judges Forum Endowed by Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND THE RULE OF LAW JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND THE RULE OF LAW 23rd Annual Forum for State Appellate Court Judges Forum Endowed by Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. When quoting or reprinting any part of this report, credit should be given to the Pound Civil Justice Institute. Permission to reprint a paper should be requested from: Pound Civil Justice Institute 777 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20001 www.poundinstitute.org [email protected] The Endower, Habush Habush & Rottier S.C., and the Forum underwriters have no control over the content of the Forum, the makeup of faculty or attendees, the placement of information in Forum materials, or the editorial content of the 2015 Forum Report. Library of Congress Control Number Pending ISBN: 978-0-933067-25-7 ©2016 Pound Civil Justice Institute “[The curtailment of public court processes is] destructive of public confidence in the judiciary. It is destructive of the rule of law for us to do things in secret.” —A judge attending the 2015 Forum “What’s wrong with the truth? If, say, a car manufacturer creates a defective product, what’s wrong with everybody knowing that? That’s our job, to discover the truth.” —A judge attending the 2015 Forum TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................................3 WELCOME BY HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC ..........................................................................................5 MORNING PAPER, ORAL REMARKS, AND COMMENTS ....................................................................................7 Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................................7 “Contracting Transparency: Public Courts, Privatizing Processes, and Democratic Practices” Judith Resnik, Yale Law School ............................................................................................................................9 Oral Remarks of Professor Resnik ...........................................................................................................................65 Comments by Panelists, Response by Professor Resnik, Questions from the Floor .........................................86 LUNCHEON ADDRESS .................................................................................................................................................95 First Amendment Issues in Judicial Transparency Adam Liptak, U.S. Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times ....................................................95 AFTERNOON PAPER, ORAL REMARKS, AND COMMENTS ..........................................................................101 “Judicial Transparency in the Twenty-First Century” Nancy Marder, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law .........................................................................................101 Oral Remarks of Professor Marder ........................................................................................................................125 Comments by Panelists, Response by Professor Marder, Questions from the Floor ......................................142 CLOSING PLENARY .....................................................................................................................................................147 THE JUDGES’ COMMENTS ......................................................................................................................................151 POINTS OF AGREEMENT ..........................................................................................................................................191 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................................195 Faculty Biographies ..................................................................................................................................................195 Judicial Attendees .....................................................................................................................................................202 Forum Underwriters ................................................................................................................................................206 About the Pound Civil Justice Institute .................................................................................................................207 Officers and Trustees of the Pound Civil Justice Institute ..................................................................................209 Papers of the Pound Civil Justice Institute ............................................................................................................210 JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND THE RULE OF LAW i FOREWORD The Pound Civil Justice Institute’s twenty-third Forum for State Appellate Court Judges was held on July 11, 2015, in Montréal, Québec, Canada. As with all of our past forums, it was both enjoyable and thought- provoking. In the Forum setting, judges, practicing attorneys, and legal scholars were able to consider the crucial issue of transparency in judicial proceedings and the impact on the rule of law of the increasing instances of non-public dispute resolution. The Pound Institute recognizes that the state courts have the principal role in the administration of justice in the United States, and that they carry by far the heaviest of our judicial workloads. We try to support them in their work by offering our annual Forums as a venue where judges, academics, and practitioners can have a brief, pertinent dialogue in a single day. These discussions sometimes lead to consensus, but even when they do not, the exercise is always fruitful. Our attendees always bring with them different points of view, and we make additional efforts to include panelists with outlooks that differ from those of most of the Institute’s Fellows. That diversity of viewpoints always emerges in our Forum reports. Our Forums for State Appellate Court Judges have been devoted to many cutting-edge topics, ranging from the court funding crisis, to the decline of jury trial, to separation of powers and forced arbitration. We are proud of our Forums, and are gratified by the increasing attendance we have experienced since their inception, as well as by the very positive comments we have received from judges who have attended in the past. A full listing of the prior Forums and their content is provided as an appendix to this report. Digital versions of our Forum reports—along with most of our other publications—are available free of charge via our website: www.poundinstitute.org. The Pound Institute is indebted to many people for the success of the 2015 Forum for State Appellate Court Judges: • Professor Judith Resnik and Professor Nancy Marder, who wrote the papers that framed our discussions; • the Honourable Nicole Duval Hesler, Chief Justice of the Province of Québec, for welcoming us to Montréal and for providing for the judges who attended the Forum a tour of her court’s beautiful building; • our luncheon speaker, Adam Liptak, the U.S. Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times, for discussing the connection between judicial transparency and the First Amendment; • our panelists—Matthew Bailey, Hon. Anne Elizabeth Barnes, Leslie Brueckner, Lance Cooper, Ronald Hedges, Patrick Malone, John Parker Sweeney, and Hon. Jean Hoefer Toal; JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND THE RULE OF LAW 1 • Kathleen Flynn Peterson, who, as Pound’s Vice President, did a fantastic job moderating the Forum in my absence; • the moderators of our small-group discussions—Linda Atkinson, Chris Aumais, James Bilsborrow, Kathryn Clarke, Thomas Fay, William Gaylord, Stephen Herman, Molly Hoffman Wolfe, Adam Langino, Wayne Parsons, Alinor Sterling, and John Vail—for helping us to arrive at the essence of the Forum, which is what experienced state court judges think about the issues we discussed; • and the Pound Civil Justice Institute’s efficient and dedicated staff—Mary Collishaw, our executive director, and Jim Rooks, our consultant and Forum Reporter—for their diligence and professionalism in organizing and administering the 2015 Judges Forum. It goes without saying that we appreciated the attendance of the distinguished group of judges who took time from their busy schedules so that we might all learn from each other. We hope you enjoy reviewing this report of the Forum, and that you will find it useful to you in your future consideration of matters relating to judicial transparency, the rule of law, and trial by jury. Herman J. Russomanno President, Pound Civil Justice Institute, 2013-15 2 JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND THE RULE OF LAW INTRODUCTION On July 11, 2015 in Montréal, Québec, Canada, 172 judges, representing 38 states, took part in the Pound Civil Justice Institute’s twenty-third annual Forum for State Appellate Court Judges. The judges examined the topic, “Judicial Transparency and the Rule of Law.” Their deliberations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harvard University
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY ROBERT AND RENÉE BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 2000-2001 ANNUAL REPORT 2 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword 5 Overview From the Executive Director 7 Environment and Natural Resources Program TABLE 8 OF Harvard Information Infrastructure Project 52 CONTENTS International Security Program 71 Science, Technology and Public Policy Program 109 Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project 155 WPF Program on Intrastate Conflict, Conflict Prevention, and Conflict Resolution 177 Events 188 Publications 219 Biographies 241 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 3 2000-2001 Annual Report 4 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword —————————————♦ For the hub of the John F. Kennedy School’s research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, conflict prevention and resolution, and science and technology policy, the first academic year of the new century has been bracing. According to our mission statement, The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs strives to provide leadership in advancing policy-relevant knowledge about the most important challenges of international security and other critical issues where science, technology, and international affairs intersect. BCSIA’s leadership begins with the recognition of science and technology as driving forces transforming threats and opportunities in international affairs. The Center integrates insights of social scientists, technologists, and practitioners with experience in government, diplomacy, the military, and business to address critical issues. BCSIA involvement in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns. BCSIA was privileged to have senior advisors in both camps in one of the most unforgettable American elections in recent memory.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Sunshine Chilly
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 55 Issue 4 SYMPOSIUM: COURT-ENFORCED Article 10 SECRECY Summer 2004 Settlements and Secrets: Is the Sunshine Chilly James E. Rooks Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rooks, James E. Jr. (2004) "Settlements and Secrets: Is the Sunshine Chilly," South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 55 : Iss. 4 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol55/iss4/10 This Symposium Paper is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rooks: Settlements and Secrets: Is the Sunshine Chilly SETTLEMENTS AND SECRETS: Is THE SUNSHINE CHILLY? JAMES E. ROOKS JR." I. OPEN COURTS, CLOSED FILES ................................. 859 II. JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH OVERUSE AND ABUSE OF SECRECY ........................ 861 III. THE "CHILLED SETTLEMENTS" ARGUMENT ....................... 863 IV. FEDERAL JUDGES CONFRONT SECRET SETTLEMENTS ............... 865 V. DOES SECRECY PROMOTE SETrLEMENT? DOES SUNSHINE "CHILL" SETrLEMENTS? ... ....... ...... ...... ....... 870 VI. WHERE ARE THE CHILLED SETTLEMENTS? ...... ....... ....... 872 VII. FROM SPECULATION TO SOPHISTRY .............................. 874 I. OPEN COURTS, CLOSED FILES American lawyers recognize that the openness of the courts, and the public nature of their proceedings and records, are hallmarks of our system ofjustice. Yet few lawyers who represent consumers in United States courts can be unaware of the national public policy debate on the frequent use and abuse of secrecy in our civil justice system. "Secrecy," in this debate, refers collectively to a number of legal mechanisms that may be used to conceal litigation information from the public, from government regulators, from attorneys handling similar cases, and in some cases even from other courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Turn Ballot Over
    1111 • Ill 111111 Ill OFFICIAL BALLOT General Election Precinct Official's Initials Winnebago County, Iowa Tuesday, November 3, 2020 King Linden 00200 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS Federal Offices State Offices Using blue or black ink, completely fill in For President and For State Senator the oval next to your choice like this:e Vice President District 4 Write-in: To vote for a valid write-in Vote for no more than ONE Team Vote for no more than One candidate, write the person's name on O Donald J. Trump REP 0 Dennis Guth REP the line provided and darken the oval. Michael R. Pence 0 Notice to voters: To vote to approve o Joseph R. Biden DEM any question on this ballot, fill in the oval Kamala D. Harris twrite-in vote if anv\ in front of the word "Yes". To vote For State Representative against a question, fill in the oval in front 0 Roque Rocky De La ALL District 7 of the word "No". Fuente Darcy G. Richardson Vote for no more than One Do not cross out. If you change your 0 Don Blankenship CON O Henry Stone REP mind, exchange your ballot for a new William Alan Mohr one. ~-- Debra Jensen DEM .. The Judicial Ballot is located on the 0 Ricki Sue King GKH .) Dayna R. Chandler back of this ballot, beginning in the middle column. 1t11,_:,.,.;.in ··-•- if--··' o Howie Hawkins GRN County.Offices Political Organizations Angela Nicole Walker Republican Party (REP) For CountyAuditor Democratic Party (DEM) o Jo Jorgensen LIB Jeremy Cohen Vote for no more than One Alliance Party (ALL) .--- REP •., Karla Weiss Constitution Party of Iowa (CON) Genealogy Know Your Family History 0 Brock Pierce C (GKH) Karla Ballard Green Party (GRN) {Write-in vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Winneshiek County, Iowa Annual Financial Report
    Winneshiek County, Iowa Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017 Benjamin D. Steines Winneshiek County Auditor and Commissioner of Elections Lynne Bullerman, Deputy Tony Clarke, Deputy Lauri Kaeser, Deputy INTRODUCTION To the Honorable Board of Supervisors and Taxpayers of Winneshiek County, Iowa: I submit herewith the One Hundred Fifteenth Annual Report of Winneshiek County, the purpose being to give in a concise and simple form the receipts and expenditures of the county, together with such other information as is deemed of interest to the taxpayers. It is hoped that a study of this report will be the means of familiarizing the taxpayers with the finances of the county. Our services are offered at all times in ascertaining facts with regard to anything connected with this office. The same cordial treatment is extended from every office in the Courthouse. Respectfully submitted, Benjamin D. Steines Official Directory UNITED STATES SENATORS Charles E. Grassley (R) Joni Ernst (R) Term ends January, 2017 Term ends January, 2021 Iowa Office Iowa Office 210 Walnut Street 210 Walnut Street Room 721, Federal Building Room 733, Federal Building Des Moines, IA 50309-2140 Des Moines, IA 50309-2140 (515) 288-1145 (515) 284-4574 FAX: (515) 288-5097 FAX: (515) 284-4937 Washington, DC Office Washington, DC Office 135 Hart Senate Office Building 825 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1501 Washington, DC 20510-5497 (202) 224-3744 (202) 224-3254 FAX: (202) 224-6020 FAX: (202) 224-9369 U.S. FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Agenda.Indd
    SEABOTA 2021 Annual Conference Henderson Beach Resort & Spa, Destin, Florida Meeting Agenda Friday, September 17 8:30 am - 8:35 am Conference Overview and Welcome S. Lester, Tate, III, President September 17 -18, 2021 8:35 am - 8:50 am Introductions of Attendees S. Lester Tate, III, President Thank you to our sponsor: 8:50 am - 9:20 am Trial By Jury Justice John Ellington Georgia Supreme Court 9:20 am - 9:50 am Some Thoughts on the Future . of Jury Trials Justice John Cannon Few South Carolina Supreme Court 9:50 am - 10:05 am Panel Q&A with Justice John Ellington and Justice John Cannon Few Moderated by S. Lester, Tate III 10:05 am - 10:15 am Coff ee Break The Foundation of ABOTA has applied for 10:15 am - 10:45 am Who Killed the Swains?: Dennis Perry’s CLE in all SEABOTA states: 20-year fi ght for Justice Joshua Sharpe CLE Approvals The Atlanta Journal-Constitution • Alabama 4.1 general credit hours • Arkansas 4 general credit hours 10:45 am - 10:55 am National Report • Georgia 4 general credit hours Grace Weatherly, National President • Kentucky 4 general credit hours • Louisiana 4 general credit hours 10:55 am - 11:05 am Foundation Report • Mississippi 4.1 general credit hours Douglas M. DeGrave, Foundation President • North Carolina 4 general credit hours • South Carolina 4.08 general credit hours 11:05 am - 12:15 pm Break • Tennessee 5.33 general credit hours • Virginia 2.5 general credit hours 12:15 pm - 1:15 pm Bourbon Justice: How Whiskey Shaped American Law with Brian F.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 16-5294 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JAMES EDMOND MCWILLIAMS, JR., Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRcuIT BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE, NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND DEFENDER ASSOCIATION AND TWENTY-THREE CAPITAL ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER JANET MOORE, Co-Chair, GEORGE H. KENDALL Amicus Committee, National Counsel of Record Association for Public Defense JENAY NURSE For identification purposes only: CORRINE A. IRISH ASSOciATE PROFESSOR SQUIRE PATTON BOggS (US) LLP UNIVERSITY OF CINciNNATI 30 Rockefeller Plaza COLLEGE OF LAW New York, New York 10112 2540 Clifton Avenue (212) 872-9800 Cincinnati OH 45221 [email protected] JO-ANN WALLACE, President DAVID OSCAR MARKUS, Co-Chair, and CEO Amicus Committee National TRAVIS STEARNS, of Counsel Association of Criminal NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND Defense Lawyers DEFENDER ASSOciATION 40 NW Third Street, PH1 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Miami, FL 33128 Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Amicus Curiae March 6, 2017 271654 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................. 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................ 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3 I. AKE V. OKLAHOMA CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF AN INDEPENDENT MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT AT A CAPITAL SENTENCING PROCEEDING ................................................. 3 A. Ake Unequivocally Requires the Provision of an Independent Expert ........................... 5 B. Ake’s Requirement of a State Funded Mental Health Expert Reinforced Pre-existing State Practice in Most Jurisdictions ..........
    [Show full text]
  • Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law?
    Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law? Amanda Frost* The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution’s text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the matter. Remarkably, this significant question about the interplay between the state and federal judicial systems lingers unresolved more than two-hundred years after the Constitution’s ratification. This Article uses this question to explore the relationship between state and lower federal courts. As a constitutional matter, it can be argued that state courts were intended to play a subordinate role to the lower federal courts when interpreting federal law, even if they are viewed as equals when it comes to finding facts and applying facts to law. Furthermore, Congress’s decision to create the lower federal courts, and then assign them broad federal question jurisdiction, arguably displaces state court authority to interpret federal law independently—particularly in an era in which the Supreme Court lacks the capacity to resolve many of the splits between the federal and state court systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 28Th Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina Friday, February 22, 2019
    28th Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina Friday, February 22, 2019 presented by The South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division http://www.scbar.org/CLE SC Supreme Court Commission on CLE Course No. 190837 Table of Contents Agenda ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Faculty Bios ......................................................................................................................................... 5 State Criminal Practice: Significant Developments in 2018 ..........................................................15 Federal Criminal Practice : Significant Developments in 2018 .....................................................32 Legislative Review and Preview: Significant 2018 Legislation, Pre-Filed Bills for 2019, and Rule Changes ...............................................................................................................................................37 Amie Clifford, Tommy Pope Expungements Primer .......................................................................................................................61 Adam Whitsett Developments and Issues in Juveniles Justice .................................................................................84 L. Eden Hendrick Keeping Up with Trends and Issues in Criminal Defense ............................................................104 Christopher Adams PCR-Proofing Your Case ................................................................................................................112
    [Show full text]
  • 85 Days of Prayer U.S
    85 Days of Prayer U.S. Executive Branch: U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Senate U.S. House of Rep. Name: Title: Name (Seated): Name (Party-State): Name (Party-State): Donald Trump President John G. Roberts, Jr. (9/29/05) Markey, Edward J. (D-MA) Heck, Denny (D-WA) Michael Pence Vice President Clarence Thomas (10/23/91) McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Hern, Kevin (R-OK) Melania Trump First Lady Herrera Beutler, Jaime (R-WA) Sonny Perdue Secretary of Agriculture Michigan Supreme Court State of Michigan Hice, Jody B. (R-GA) William Barr Attorney General Bridget Mary McCormack Gretchen Whitmer (Governor) Higgins, Brian (D-NY) Sunday, November 01 November Sunday, Mark Meadows White House Chief of Staff Stephen Markman Garlin Gilchrist II (Lt. Governor) Higgins, Clay (R-LA) U.S. Executive Branch: U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Senate U.S. House of Rep. Name: Title: Name (Seated): Name (Party-State): Name (Party-State): Donald Trump President Stephen G. Breyer (8/3/94) McSally, Martha (R-AZ) Hill, J. French (R-AR) Michael Pence Vice President Samuel A. Alito (1/31/06) Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) Himes, James A. (D-CT) Gina Haspel Director of the CIA Holding, George (R-NC) Wilbur L. Ross Jr. Secretary of Commerce Michigan Supreme Court State of Michigan Hollingsworth, Trey (R-IN) Mark Esper Secretary of Defense Brian Zahra Jocelyn Benson (Sec. of State) Horn, Kendra S. (D-OK) Monday, November 02 November Monday, Kayleigh McEnany Press Secretary David Viviano Dana Nessel (Attorney Gen.) Horsford, Steven (D-NV) U.S. Executive Branch: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iowa Lawyer
    THE L AW Y ER IOWADecember 2019/January 2020 V 79 N 11 CREATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR BETTER WORK-LIFE BALANCE p. 7 FDA. USDA. EPA. We’ve Got It Covered. McKee, Voorhees & Sease provides its clients a level of protection for their products that is unlike any other in FDA, USDA, and EPA regulatory and product development industry. In a regulated environment, careful coordination of intellectual property and regulatory strategy from initiation through post-launch is critical for successful product development & commercialization. Intellectual Regulatory: Business Product Property Local, National, Global Development Development • Freedom to Operate • Analyzing • Startups • Project and • Patents & Trade Requirements • Funding Portfolio Secrets • Regulatory Data • Collaborations and Management • Licensing Package & Joint Ventures • Risk Assessment • Patent Exhaustion Approvals • Mergers & and Mitigation • IP Enforcement • Stewardship Acquisitions • Launch and Post- • Compliance Launch Planning For more information regarding regulatory, IP and product development law, please visit our website or call (515) 288-3667 and ask to speak with Cassie Edgar, Chair of the Regulatory & Product Development Law practice group. Your Worldwide IP Partner Since 1924™ PATENTS • TRADEMARKS • COPYRIGHTS • REGULATORY LAW TRADE SECRETS • ENTERTAINMENT LAW • LICENSING • LITIGATION The official publication of The Iowa State Bar Association. EDITORIAL TEAM Editor-in-Chief General Inquiries Melissa Higgins 515-243-3179 515-697-7896 [email protected] [email protected] Copy Editor Steve Boeckman 515-697-7869 [email protected] THE IOWA LAWYER (ISSN 1052-5327) is published monthly, except for the combined December-January issue, by The Iowa State Bar Association, 625 East Court Ave., Des Moines, IA 50309-1904. One copy of each issue is furnished to association members as part of their annual dues.
    [Show full text]
  • V-9 Stephen J. Markman
    JUSTICE STEPHEN J. MARKMAN Term expires January 1, 2013 Stephen Markman was appointed as a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court on October 1, 1999. Before his appointment, he served as judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals from 1995-1999. Prior to this, he prac- ticed law with the firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone in Detroit. From 1989-93, Justice Markman served as United States Attorney, or federal prosecutor, in Michigan, after having been nominated by President George H. W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. From 1985-1989, he served as Assistant Attorney General of the United States, after having been nominated by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the United States Senate. In that position, he headed the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, which served as the principal policy development office within the Department, and which coordinated the federal judicial selection process. Prior to this, he served for 7 years as Chief Counsel of the United States Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, and as Deputy Chief Counsel of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Justice Markman has authored articles for such publications as the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, the Detroit College of Law Review, the Stanford Law Review, the University of Chicago Law Review, the American Criminal Justice Law Review, the Barrister’s Law Journal, the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and the American University Law Review. He has also served as a contributing editor of National Review magazine, and has authored chapters in such books as “In the Name of Justice: The Aims of the Criminal Law,” “Still the Law of the Land,” and “Originalism: A Quarter Century of Debate.” Justice Markman has taught constitutional law at Hillsdale College since 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism and Stare Decisis
    ORIGINALISM AND STARE DECISIS STEPHEN MARKMAN* The extent to which originalism can be harmonized with precedent is an issue I have confronted regularly during my ten‐ ure as a justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. This article out‐ lines several observations that have informed my thinking on this topic, drawn from my decade or so on that court.1 I view myself as an originalist judge, sometimes lapsing into self‐descriptions as a “textualist,” an “interpretivist,” a believer in “original meaning,” or even a “judicial conservative.” Nu‐ ances of differences in these terms aside, I take seriously what I view as my obligation to give reasonable meaning to the lan‐ guage of the drafters of constitutions, statutes, contracts, and deeds. I have taken oaths to the United States Constitution and to the Michigan Constitution, and I take these oaths seriously. On the other hand, I have not taken an oath to abide by the judgments of my predecessors. Yet, on a number of occasions, I have sustained precedents I have disagreed with, and which did not, in my judgment, conform to the intentions of the lawmaker. Despite this, the primary criticism of my court during the eight years when I served with three other originalists as a majority of our seven‐member court, was that we were insufficiently re‐ spectful of precedent.2 Throughout my time on the court, I have * Justice, Michigan Supreme Court. Based on remarks delivered at the Twenty‐Ninth Annual Federalist Society National Student Symposium, held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. 1. The author was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court on October 1, 1999, and reelected in 2000 and 2004.
    [Show full text]