CHIEF JUSTICE McCORMACK’S RESIGNATION AND FOUR OTHER ISSUES

Question 1): Bridget MCCORMACK, Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court,  announced last week that she is resigning from the bench no later than Dec. 31 but not before Nov. 22. McCormack, who became the 108^th justice and the ninth woman to join the Court when she was sworn in as an associate justice on Jan. 1, 2013, told Gov. Gretchen WHITMER that she is leaving just two years after she was re-elected to a second  eight-year term in 2020. She’ll have a soft landing, at least financially. In February, she will become president/CEO of the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolutions (AAA-ICDR). Her salary will be around $1 million per annum, give or take a hundred thousand dollars or so. Her base salary as a Michigan Supreme Court justice is $164,610 per year, although that would increase to $181,482 in 2023. (See “Supreme Court Justices To Receive 5% Pay Bump In ’23, ’24,” 12/18/20.) What is McCormack’s legacy? Whom will the governor appoint to replace her? Why the six-week ‘window’ for her departure, sometime between late November and the end of the year? Whom will the other six Supremes appoint to replace her as chief justice beginning in January, 2023?

 Answer 1): McCormack, who turned 56 years old in July, has been easily the most effective Democratic chief justice in at least the past half-century, and — given her accomplishments as a legal scholar, administrator, public relations maven, and behind-the-scenes political consensus-builder — a case could be made that she has been the best chief justice regardless of party in at least as long a time. We don’t yet know the results of the Nov. 8 general election, when two incumbents — one a Democrat (Richard Bernstein), one a Republican (Brian Zahra) — are running for re-election, but the odds strongly favor the sitting justices being re-elected. That would leave the partisan split on the court where it is now — a 4-3 Democratic majority with one of the Republicans (Beth Clement) often siding with the Democrats on key cases. It seems inconceivable that the justices after 11/8 would elect a Republican to be the next chief, but Viviano has maneuvered his way to being the Chief Justice Pro-Tem, so if McCormack quits with some days or weeks remaining between her termination and Dec. 31, the majority Dems could allow Viviano to become the ‘acting’ chief for a brief time before 2023. Then the most likely result would be that Bernstein becomes the next chief, because the remaining Democrats, both female, on the court are the least senior, having been elected in 2018 and 2020 (if this year’s other Democratic nominee, Kyra Bolden, should manage to win on 11/8, that would make three ‘junior’ females). Whomever Whitmer names to replace McCormack won’t affect the partisan balance, because it is sure to be another Democrat. In an interview last week with Michigan Public Radio’s Rick Pluta, McCormack bemoaned the fact that there are no African-Americans on the high bench and that there are 25 states with similar situations. Of course, there WAS an African-American on the court, Republican Kurtis Wilder (a Rick Snyder appointee) but the wily McCormack had campaigned against him with fellow Democrat Mary Cavanagh and knocked Wilder off. In other words, Wilder was the WRONG KIND of African-American. What McCormack COULD have said is that there are no DEMOCRATIC Michigan justices of color, but Pluta failed to point that out in a follow-up question that might have drawn attention to McCormack’s ‘crocodile tears.’ In sum, McCormack has every reason to take her leave now. She has accomplished great things for her party — bringing it from a 5-2 minority when she first took her seat in 2013 to the majority it has today. Remember, judges and justices are, above all, politicians.

*************************************************************************

Question 2): Is it unlikely, possible, or probable that all those TV ads defining Republican gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon as “extreme on the abortion issue,” coupled with Whitmer’s array of positive ads, have already assured Dixon’s defeat?

Answer 2): Probable, because Dixon hasn’t “pushed back” with any ads of her own that try to reframe the issue so that Whitmer might be put on the defensive as a proponent of an ‘extreme’ abortion rights proposal on the Nov. 8 ballot. We all know that Dixon doesn’t have the campaign cash to compete with the governor on a whole range of issues, but Dixon should TRY to reconfigure the debate on abortion, where public opinion is strongly on Whitmer’s side.

***************************************************************************************

Question 3): Would sticking to one issue (Voter I.D., which polls show is viewed favorably by 70% of the electorate) and otherwise keeping quiet, be the best chance Kristina KARAMO, the Republican nominee for Secretary of State, has of winning in November?

Answer 3): Whether it’s one issue or a whole host of issues, Karamo really doesn’t have a chance in the general election. She’s got low name ID, no money, and among those paying attention she’s viewed as being aligned with the most far-right election conspiracy theorists out there, and whether that’s fair or not that’s a minority opinion in all the polls. Yes, she’s right about Voter ID, but, c’mon, will voters kick Jocelyn Benson out of office over that single issue? The only other thing Karamo could do is blast Benson about her handling of motor vehicle branch offices and maybe take a few shots at her for her partisan approach to the 2020 election, like mailing out unsolicited absentee ballot applications to every voter in the state.

*******************************************************

Question 4): Does the fact that there will be no debates for the office of Attorney General enhance or hamper Republican nominee Matt DePERNO’s chances for victory?

Answer 4): It hampers him. He’s pretty much in the same position as Karamo, except that he has a potentially more vulnerable incumbent he’s running against in Dana Nessel. But he has little name ID, almost no campaign cash, and he would have everything to gain and nothing to lose (even if his debate performance might be miserable) by gaining at least one debate with Nessel. Not gonna happen.

*****************************************************************

Question  5): According to news reports a week ago, Michigan State University President Samuel STANLEY had until Tuesday (9/13) to resign, or he would be fired by the MSU Board of Trustees. Stanley allegedly failed to follow MSU’s policy pertaining to reporting allegations of sexual misconduct. Guess what? It hasn’t happened! Moreover, it isn’t likely that it will. The faculty backed Stanley up, and most of the trustees have his back. But if he quits or is fired, this would be the third MSU president forced out for mishandling the fallout from Larry NASSAR’s abuses. Is MSU in danger of making its office of President untenable?

Answer 5): There will always be a boatload of people who would want to be president of a major land grant university like MSU. Their egos are plenty big enough for them to be confident that they could prove the MSU presidency is not “untenable.” However, one might think at this point that Sparty’s image has taken one blow too many. There was a lead-up to former presidents Lou Anna Simon’s and John Engler’s resignations, and they were somewhat understandable, but this one involving Samuel Stanley is a surprise, and it makes everyone wonder how much longer the Nassar scandal and its fallout is going to damage and embarrass the university’s image and reputation. Long before now, MSU should have gotten its act together on gender-based assault and harassment issues.

*******************************************************************