Engler's Supreme Court Appointee Robert Young; Bad for Michigan and YOU
Robert Young was originally an appointee of Republican Governor John Engler. Young's background is representing big-business corporations. His decisions consistently favor large corporations over workers and consumers. He was a member of what was called the infamous "Gang of Four" (until Chief Justice Taylor was defeated in the 2008 election). "The Gang" were four very conservative members of the "Federalist Society" that were far to the right of lower-court judges. They weakened laws on civil rights, environmental preservation, and consumer protection and aided Republican big-business special interest groups. Young often legislates from the bench. For example, he wrote an opinion that departed from the clear wording of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.
Take a look at five cases where Robert Young made bad decisions, violating both the law and your interests. This analysis was written by Bob Ciaffone in cooperation with Rudy Serra of the Justice Caucus. We will give you the name of the decision, a summary of it, and an internet link to reading the whole text of the decision. If you have time, please read the whole case and see from where our analysis was derived.
Let's work to get Robert Young off the Supreme Court and back into corporate law where he belongs.
Bad Decision #1: Young blocked citizens' rights to take action and protect the environment. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestle Waters North America, Inc, 479 Mich 280 (2004)(5-2 decision with Weaver concurring in result only, changed 30 years of Michigan case law that said "any person" meant "any person").
SUMMARY
This awful decision stripped the people of Michigan of a right that had been guaranteed to them in the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, a law specifically called for the legislature to make by the Michigan Constitution. The law said that "any person" could bring suit to protect the environment of our state.
Two lakes, a stream, and some wetlands were being deprived of an adequate amount of water by a commercial bottling plant that was extracting its water from the underground source of those bodies of water.
The Michigan Supreme Court basically denied standing to people owning property on the water, saying that groundwater was not part of the environment that was protected by the Michigan Constitution!
We know about the inter-relation of groundwater and surface water; which is of great importance to the environment. Aquifers are a key part of supplying lakes and streams with needed water. This decision stripped Michigan of needed protection for our "Water Wonderland."
An environmental group's write-up of this decision is available at: http://www.justice4michigan.org/files/hfp_nestle_case.pdf
Bad Decision #2: Young ruled in favor of requiring voters to present a photo ID. In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich 1 (2007)(5-2 decision).
SUMMARY
This opinion was written by Justice Robert Young. It upheld a law requiring any voter who lacked a photo ID to sign an affidavit of identity before voting, and then cast a provisional ballot.
Asking for a photo ID has a tendency to suppress the vote turnout of people who lack such an ID. A smaller turnout of such voters benefits the Republican Party while harming the Democratic Party. Many poor people do not have appropriate photo identification. Further, they often misunderstand the law and think you need to show an ID to vote. They often don't know they have the right to cast a provisional ballot. Such people can also have their vote discounted after casting a provisional ballot. If the election is a close one - that requires a re-count, their provisional ballot can be challenged.
This law might be reasonable if there were widespread voter fraud. That would give the state a compelling interest in preserving the purity of the vote. However, the state failed to submit any evidence of voter fraud in this case. The photo ID law addressed a hypothetical problem--and created a real problem in doing so.
The full text of this decision, including dissents, is available at the below website:
Bad Decision #3: Young's decisions have made it harder for unions to organize and bargain. Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v City of Pontiac, 482 Mich 1 (2008), as part of DETROIT FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION IAFF LOCAL 344, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 131463 CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellant.
(4-3 decision reversing circuit court's preliminary injunction to block laying off firefighters).
SUMMARY
The Michigan Supreme Court overturned decisions of two lower courts on this issue. The union and the city were operating under binding arbitration that had been going on for years. The city laid off a large number of firefighters, endangering public safety. The lower courts placed an injunction on the layoffs, but the Michigan Supreme Court said this injunction was improper because there had been insufficient evidence to show public endangerment. This decision put the union at a large disadvantage in the arbitration process and created a greater public safety problem as well.
Does a firefighter or citizen actually need to burn to death to show that the injunction to maintain an adequate number of firefighters was needed and appropriate?
Bad Decision #4: Young ruled to gut and effectively destroy Michigan's Consumer Protection Act, once one of the best in the nation. Liss v Lewiston-Richards, Inc, 478 Mich 203 (2007)(5-2 decision overruling two recent cases, which basically allowed defendants to abuse an exception of the MCPA by doing things that are prohibited by the statute creating the exception).
SUMMARY
Justice Kelly (in dissent) summarized the faultiness of the decision. She said, "By ruling as it does, the majority has essentially decided that merely being a licensee in a regulated industry qualifies one for the exemption. Nothing indicates that the Legislature intended such a result."
The Lisses sued under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The defendant was a builder who performed sloppy work and failed to complete their home in the agreed-upon time span.
A "regulated industry" is exempt from the MCPA. However, this is not the same as saying anyone who is licensed by the state of Michigan to do a certain thing cannot be sued under this act. Licensing someone is not the same as regulating them. Regulation gives a much greater degree of oversight than merely granting a license.
Bad Decision #5: Young ruled to protect drunk drivers by making it harder to hold them accountable for the deaths, injuries, and damage they cause. Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004)(judicially changing the serious impairment threshold), cited by Gagne v Schulte, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, decided February 28, 2006 (Docket No. 264788)(drunk driver found not liable because Plaintiff failed to meet Kreiner standard).
SUMMARY
This decision set a higher bar for getting compensated for injuries sustained in an automobile accident than was intended by the Michigan legislature when it adopted no-fault insurance. This Michigan Supreme Court decision was by a 4-3 margin. It overruled two lower court decisions. (It brings to mind the George Bush attempt to change the definition of torture by requiring death or organ failure as a prerequisite.) "Serious impairment" should not require missing body parts or total loss of functionality.
These five cases--and many more like them--show that we need to replace Justice Young with a person who will look out for the rights of ordinary people instead of unfairly favoring the GOP and big business.
