Clifford Taylor (Michigan)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Clifford Taylor

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Republican Party

Prior offices
Michigan Supreme Court

Education

Bachelor's

University of Michigan

Law

George Washington University 

float:right;
border:1px solid #FFB81F;
background-color: white;
width: 250px;
font-size: .9em;
margin-bottom:0px;

} .infobox p { margin-bottom: 0; } .widget-row { display: inline-block; width: 100%; margin-top: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; } .widget-row.heading { font-size: 1.2em; } .widget-row.value-only { text-align: center; background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.value-only.white { background-color: #f9f9f9; } .widget-row.value-only.black { background-color: #f9f9f9; color: black; } .widget-row.Democratic { background-color: #003388; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Republican { background-color: red; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Independent, .widget-row.Nonpartisan, .widget-row.Constitution { background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Libertarian { background-color: #f9d334; color: black; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Green { background-color: green; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-key { width: 43%; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold; } .widget-value { width: 57%; float: right; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; word-wrap: break-word; } .widget-img { width: 150px; display: block; margin: auto; } .clearfix { clear: both; }


Clifford W. Taylor was a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court by Governor John Engler in August of 1997 to replace Dorothy Comstock Riley. He became the chief justice in 2005 and was chosen for that position again in 2007. In the 2008 election, he became the first chief justice in the state to be defeated by a challenger. He left the court in early 2009 and later joined the law firm of Miller Canfield.[1][2]

Education

Taylor received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and his J.D. from George Washington University.[3]

Career

  • 2005-2009: Chief justice
  • 1992-1997: Judge, Michigan Court of Appeals (Appointed by Gov. Engler)
  • 1972-1992: Attorney/partner, Denfield, Timmer & Taylor (previously Denfield, Timmer and Seelye)
  • Assistant prosecuting attorney, Ingham County[3]

Awards and associations

  • Board of Directors, National Conference of Chief Justices
  • Board of the George Mason University Law and Economics Center
  • Michigan Legislature’s Commission on the Courts in the 21st Century
  • Michigan State Board of Law Examiners
  • Board of Directors, Chief Okemos Council of the Boy Scouts of America
  • Board of Directors, Michigan Dyslexia Institute[3]

Elections

2008

Candidate IncumbentSeatPartyElection %
Supreme-Court-Elections-badge.png
Diane Hathaway ApprovedA NoTaylor SeatDemocratic49.3%
Clifford Taylor YesTaylor SeatRepublican39.4%
Robert Roddis NoTaylor SeatLibertarian11.1%


Fundraising

Taylor raised over $1.8 million for his re-election campaign in 2008.[4] Previously, when he ran for election in 2000, he raised $1.3 million.[5] Some of his biggest donors, who each gave the $34,000 maximum allowed, were: the Michigan Chamber of Commerce; the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce; the Michigan Restaurant Association and the Michigan Association of Realtors.[6]

Endorsements

  • The Detroit News endorsed Clifford Taylor for re-election.[7] They noted that Taylor “...has been careful with the public’s money as chief justice and sought reasonable ways to contain costs. He led the justices and appellate judges in relinquishing their cars. In a time of tight economic resources, he asked the State Court Administrative Office, which through the Supreme Court has oversight responsibilities for all state courts, to examine whether the number and jurisdictions of some lower court judges should be reallocated or reconsidered. It was the right kind of question for the court to be asking.”[8]
  • The Detroit Free Press endorsed Taylor, saying, "Voters would get a different justice in Hathaway, but not a better one. For that reason, they ought to retain Clifford Taylor, despite his shortcomings."[9]
  • The Bay City Times endorsed Taylor, stating: "On Nov. 4, we recommend keeping Clifford Taylor for another eight-year term on the Michigan Supreme Court."[7]
  • The Oakland Press also endorsed Taylor for re-election.[7] They lauded his support of “jury reform, backing proposals aimed at giving jurors more information and helping them render fair, impartial verdicts. He also would allow jurors to take notes and to ask proper questions of witnesses.”[10]

Legislative and Judicial Restructuring Initiative

See also: Michigan Legislative and Judicial Restructuring Initiative (2008)

In 2008, some Democratic Party leaders, as well as labor groups, sought to pass a ballot measure that would eliminate two Republican seats on the state's high court, including Taylor's, as well as make other broad changes to the structure of the state's government. The initiative was officially called the Michigan Legislative and Judicial Restructuring Initiative, but was also referred to as the Reform Michigan Government Now measure.

The proposal never made it to the ballot, after the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that it was an illegal attempt to change the state's constitution without a constitutional convention.[6][11] The state supreme court affirmed the court of appeals on September 8 in a 6-1 decision (Justice Kelly dissenting).

Supreme court justices, court of appeals judges and trial judges would have seen salaries cut 15 percent if the proposal passed; the number of high court justices would have been cut from seven to five, and appeals judges from 28 to 21, while adding 10 trial judges. The initiative would have also taken away the state courts' say in redistricting lawsuits, as well as reshape the high court by cutting two justices--both Republicans--with the least seniority. One of those justices would have been Taylor. Amendment supporters divulged little information about the origins of the amendment and who paid to collect 487,000 signatures to attempt to make the ballot.

The measure appeared to have been developed by Democratic strategists and Hastings-based activists who tried unsuccessfully in 2006 to move to a unicameral, or one-chamber, legislature. According to an article by The Grand Rapids Press, "Democrats, while worried black voters could lose representation if legislative seats are cut, like provisions to revamp the way districts are redrawn in 2011 by shifting responsibility from the Legislature to a nine-member commission."[12]

Joe Lukasiewicz, executive director of Reform Michigan Government Now, which organized the proposal, stated,

“ The special interests will try to block the will of the people...And because every judge has a conflict of interest, the courts should stand aside and let the people decide in November on reforming Michigan's broken government.[12][13] ”

Republicans charged that this was a covert power grab by Democrats, whose primary motive was defeating Taylor by hammering a conflict of interest if the measure didn't make the ballot. Michigan Republican Party spokesman Bill Nowling, said of the Democrats supporting the measure,

“ They're willing to throw out Michigan's constitution to do it. What an absurd abuse of power that would be.[12][13] ”

Noteworthy cases

Robinson v. City of Detroit (2000)

This consolidated case (with Cooper v. Wade) addressed government liability, specifically if the City of Detroit (or individual police officers) could face civil liability for injuries sustained by passengers in vehicles fleeing from the police when the fleeing car caused the accident. In a 5-2 decision, Justice Taylor (joined by Justices Weaver, Corrigan, Young and Markman) wrote that it is unreasonable to suggest under a narrow reading of the statute that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the operation of the police vehicles. In this decision the court departed from precedent that the majority ruled was decided improperly (Fiser v. Ann Arbor, Rogers v. Detroit and Dedes v. Asch).[14]

While establishing a two-part test as a basis for departure from precedent, the court also asserted that their duty was to accept the Legislature’s understanding of the laws they make. The opinion in Dedes assumed that when the Legislature wrote “The... employee’s... conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage” (emphasis added) that the Legislature meant “a” proximate cause. Writing for the majority, Taylor noted:

“ After all, the judiciary has always adhered to the principle that the Legislature, having acted, is held to know what it has done, i.e., to know the difference between ‘a proximate cause’ and ‘the proximate cause’... it is not necessary to rely on theoretical surmises to conclude this, as the Legislature has shown an awareness that it actually knows the two phrases are different. It has done this by utilizing the phrase ‘a proximate cause’ in at least five statutes and has used the phrase ‘the proximate cause’ in at least thirteen other statutes. Given such a pattern, it is particularly indefensible that the Dedes majority felt free to read ‘the proximate cause’ as if it said ‘a proximate cause.’ The error will not be compounded, as today this Court corrects the flawed analysis of the Dedes majority.[14][13] ”

County of Wayne v. Edward Hathcock (2004)

In this eminent domain case, the County of Wayne initiated condemnations of 19 parcels of land south of the Metropolitan Airport with the ultimate goal of creating a business and technology park complete with hotel, conference center and recreational activities. The county argued that the job creation and tax revenues from this project amounted to "public use" of the property pursuant to Article 10, Section 2 of the 1963 constitution. The plain language of that section includes the following: "Public use' does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues." Defendant Hathcock and fellow property owners argued successfully that the transfer of their properties to private parties was inconsistent with the understanding of "public use" at the ratification of the 1963 constitution. Justice Young (Justice Taylor concurring) wrote that the condemnations did not advance a "public use" and reversed the lower court rulings.[15]

Lee v. Macomb County Board of Commissioners (2001)

In Lee, the Michigan Supreme Court settled the matter of the state’s application of the law with respect to cases where a party’s standing to appear in court was in question. Prior to 2001, the courts in Michigan applied a loosely-defined standing doctrine, but never settled on a workable and explicit test to make such a determination.

In Lee, the plaintiffs wished to compel their county board of commissioners to levy a tax to create a veteran’s relief fund for indigent veterans, pursuant to the state’s Soldiers’ Relief Fund Act. None of the plaintiffs had ever sought relief under the Act. The Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs had standing because they were “members of the class for whose benefit the Act was enacted” and they were “detrimentally affected in a manner different from the public generally.”[16]

In defining the state’s standing doctrine, the court looked to the United States Supreme Court decision in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). The Court quoted Justice Antonin Scalia from his opinions in Lewis v. Casey (1996), Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995) and Lujan. Additionally, the court cited its own prior decisions to explain standing as “...a legal term used to denote the existence of a party's interest in the outcome of litigation that will ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy. However, evidence that a party will engage in full and vigorous advocacy, by itself, is insufficient to establish standing. Standing requires a demonstration that the plaintiff's substantial interest will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large." (House Speaker v. Governor, 441 Mich 547, 554; 495 NW2d 539 (1993))[16]

Justice Taylor, writing for the court (Justices Corrigan, Young and Markman concurring), reversed the Court of Appeals and held that “injury in fact” is a necessary precondition to establish standing. Since the plaintiffs in Lee hadn’t sought relief under the specific Act in question, they couldn’t establish an injury by failing to gain relief under the Act. Justice Weaver concurred, but wrote a separate opinion to disagree with the Lujan standard.[16]

Phillips v. Mirac, Inc. (2004)

In this liability damages cap case, the court addressed the question of whether Legislatively-enacted damage caps violated the state’s constitution by depriving plaintiffs equal protection, due process, or a jury trial.

Regeana Diane Hervey, while a passenger in a car driven by another party, was killed in an accident. The vehicle had been leased from the defendant, an Enterprise Rent-A-Car franchise. Phillips, mother of the deceased, sued the franchise under a law (MCL 257.401(3)) which establishes liability for automobile lessors when permissive users (the driver, in this case), are negligent and cause an accident injuring others. The statute also capped damages for such lessors at $20,000 for each injured person to a maximum of $40,000 for each accident. The trial court ruled the caps were unconstitutional. The appeals court reversed and the supreme court affirmed the court of appeals.

The crux of the issue was whether the “right of jury trial” includes as part of its meaning the right of having a jury determine damages and the jury’s determination being above correction by either the Legislature or the courts. The other issues--equal protection and due process--followed as a matter of course from the first question about the right of jury trial. The court drew on common law references that predated Michigan’s statehood to illustrate that, "...certain elements...have long been regarded as the ‘essence’ of trial by jury, such as unanimity, impartiality, and competence of the jury” and that “the only matters ‘properly within the province of the jury’ are questions of fact.”[17] The United States Supreme Court (Tull v. United States (1987)) also concluded that the role of the jury is confined to finding facts and that matters of law were for the court, including the assessment of civil penalties. Writing for the majority, Justice Taylor also quoted Thomas Jefferson who wrote “...Juries therefore... determine all matters of fact, leaving to the permanent judges to decide the law resulting from those facts.”[17] Joining Justice Taylor’s opinion were Justices Corrigan, Young and Markman; Justice Weaver concurred that the statute did not violate the three rights in question, but wrote her own opinion to support that conclusion.[17]

Approach to the law

Taylor describes his judicial philosophy as one of judicial restraint, stating:

“ Judges have an important but narrow role: to apply the law as written by the Legislature. In other words, a judge has no authority to impose his personal views or pursue his own agenda.[18][13] ”

American Justice Partnership

Excerpt from the interview:

“ ...I was a "judicial conservative"--and by that I mean not a political conservative, but a judicial conservative--which means that I believe the court's job is to follow the law and follow the constitution. And it may be that that produces outcomes that people who aren't aware of that template find offensive. But that is what our job is.[19][13] ”

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ PRNewswire "Former Chief Justice of Michigan Supreme Court Joins Miller Canfield," February 8, 2010
  2. ↑ Point of Law, "Top state court race: In Michigan, Chief Justice Taylor defeated," November 5, 2008
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Michigan Supreme Court: Biographies of the Justices - Clifford W. Taylor, archived May 17, 2008
  4. ↑ FollowTheMoney.org, "Cliff Taylor - 2008"
  5. ↑ FollowTheMoney.org, "Cliff Taylor - 2000"
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 M Live, "Ever-more-expensive court races heading higher," August 24, 2008
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 St. Joseph County Republican County, "All four of the State's newspaper editorial boards endorsing in the Supreme Court race so far this year have chosen Cliff Taylor!", accessed March 14, 2014
  8. ↑ Detroit News 10/13/08
  9. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Despite his agenda, retain Chief Justice Clifford Taylor," October 14, 2008
  10. ↑ Oakland Press 10/14/08
  11. ↑ Ballotpedia: Michigan Legislative and Judicial Restructuring Initiative (2008)
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 MLive, "Michigan judges face ethical issues over pay cut," July 10, 2008
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Leagle, "Robinson v. City of Detroit," July 18, 2000
  15. ↑ Michigan Bar, "County of Wayne v Edward Hathcock...," July 30, 2004
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Leagle, "Lee v. Macomb County Board of Commissioners," July 17, 2001
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Leagle, "Phillips v. Mirac, Inc.," July 6, 2004
  18. ↑ Cliff Taylor 2008 campaign website: "Why This Race is Important to You," archived October 5, 2008
  19. ↑ American Justice Partnership, "Interview with Clifford W. Taylor," accessed March 14, 2014

Michigan courts

Federal courts:

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Michigan, Western District of Michigan • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Eastern District of Michigan, Western District of Michigan

State courts:

Michigan Supreme Court • Michigan Court of Appeals • Michigan Circuit Court • Michigan District Courts • Michigan Probate Courts

State resources:

Courts in Michigan • Michigan judicial elections • Judicial selection in Michigan

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Clifford_Taylor_(Michigan)&oldid=9706833"