1) Productivity. The authors literally defined this in terms of number of opinions issued per justice. So, if Supreme Court X cranks out 20 per justice and Supreme Court Y only issues 7 each, that makes X the better court just by virtue of sheer numbers, right?

Wrong, and this is such a stupid assertion that I am amazed the authors would ever advance it. First, remember that the Michigan Supreme Court (like the U.S. Supreme Court and most state courts of last resort, while it reviews every case brought to it, does not have to grant leave to appeal in each case. Instead, the Court confines itself to taking up cases that present unsettled legal questions, statutes whose interpretation is unclear, issues of major significance to the public -- in other words, the tough cases. Individual Justices may disagree about WHICH cases to take up, for sure, but the guiding principle is supposed to be whether the Court NEEDS to take up a case. As a former law prof of mine used to say about SCOTUS, "The less they do, the safer we are." In other words, you don't evaluate a supreme court as if it were a widget factory. If anyone has a problem with the number of opinions the MSC issues each year, he/she/they should be ready to cite specific cases which the MSC did not take up, and also be ready to explain why the Court should have granted leave.

2)Influence. This criterion is measured as the number of times a supreme court's decisions are cited by other states' courts. In other words, if an MSC decision is cited with approval by, say, the CA Supreme Court, or courts in Delaware, Ohio, Georgia, etc., the more "influential" the MSC is.
Two points: First, the white paper (for reasons that aren't explained) used 10-year-old data. The MSC may be cited much more often now (as it was in the wake of Wayne County v Hathcock, the MSC decision in which the Court ruled that homeowners' private property could not be condemned for a commercial enterprise -- a ruling which received a lot of national attention).
Second, there are a lot of factors that go into whether a state supreme court is cited by other states' courts -- and one of them is how aggressive the court being cited is in cutting new legal territory. (Think of CA and MA in this regard.) A court that is reluctant to make radical depatures from established law is unlikely to be much cited, therefore. Law profs might see that as a bad court -- whether most citizens would agree with them is quite another thing.

3) "Partisanship." This is defined by how often members of a supreme court vote with one another. If Justice A usually votes with Justice B, and Justice X's opinions are consistently joined by Justice Y, then that makes all four "partisan" justices, according to this criterion. In fact, if we apply this reasoning to SCOTUS, then Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg are bad justices because, given their respective judicial philosophies, they can often be found voting with justices who share their views about the law. So, under this criterion, the only really good justice is the one who's the consistent swing vote on the court, which could mean he/she doesn't have a coherent judicial philosophy -- that he/she just makes it up as he/she goes along, or on the basis of what result he/she wants in the case at hand. Gee, just what you want on a supreme court.

Who was it that said, "We have met the enemy and it is us!"  Until we demand more from our political leaders than a few well placed sound bytes and warm and fuzzy phrases we are getting what we deserve.

VIVE LIBERTE'
Vote Libertarian!

I suspect that whoever is running against Cliff will get the same kind of treatment from republican shills.

Truth in politics is a rare thing and has been for many years.  

It took me all of one minute to find out who is running against Taylor, Diane Hathaway, and another minute to find a hit piece by a Ms. Schcellel,(sp) in which she makes the claim that Hathaway is soft on terrorism.  Shills from both parties are equally destructive to the parties and this country as a whole whether you chose to acknowledge that fact or not.

As I said, I stand by my comments, integrity and honor are lost on both parties.

goppartyreptile, how do you know libertarians wouldn't make a difference, when have they ever held the office of President, Supreme Court Justice, or a congressional seat?  

The system has been rigged by the two sitting parties.  Give the libertarians a chance and let's see what they can do.  

I too, hate to burst the bubble of so many believers, but the two parties are one and the same.  Neither could give a rats patoot about this country or our liberties.  We have lost so much under each party and there is little hope of getting any of it back.  However, we may be able to slow the loss down if we start voting for candidates that believe in freedom and liberty and the only party I see that believes that is libertarian.

Detroit is another sad example.  The people of Detroit keep electing the same people no matter that they have criminal or unethical pasts.  They have done that for years, and then wonder why the hell the rest of the state can't stand them.  They want the rest of the state to stay out of their affairs yet refuse to give up the millions in state tax dollars that they take and misspend.

I could go on and on about both parties, but I'm sure you know as many stories as I do.  I still believe that a little revolution is a good thing and the best revolution in today's political world would be to vote the current crop of crooks out of office and install third party candidates.  What better way to send a message to Washington and the rest of the country?

• 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

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.

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
    

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
    

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
    

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).

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!

Open and Obvious is a very common affirmative defense that fits very well with comparative negligence.  In order to overcome an "open and obvious" defense, you have to prove that the defendent was substantially more negligent than the plaintiff.

Sidewalks get icy in Michigan every winter, and you know sidewalks are icy when you walk on them.  If you slip and fall on one, that doesn't mean the defendent was negligent because it happens.  But the plaintiff was negligent for not taking measures to ensure his own safety.

How can you claim these are "the Taylor court", when he's not the chief justice during most of these 25 cases?

Boy, Democrats sure like to hold people accountable.  But damn if you can't hold Granholm or Dillon responsible for 6 years of recession in Michigan.