Stephen Markman

Last updated

The detailed report setting out my office's recommendations emphasized that changes in Miranda should be approached in the context of a general rethinking of policies concerning the questioning of suspects, which could include such reforms as videotaping or recording interrogations, imposing definite time limits on questioning, and prescribing specific rules concerning behavior and demeanor in questioning suspects. Measures like these would go far beyond the Miranda rules in ensuring fair treatment of suspects, but would predictably carry lesser costs to the public`s interest in effective police investigation. Conversely, no real progress can be expected in promoting either of these objectives in the context of custodial questioning so long as the myth persists that the specific procedures suggested in the Miranda decision must be regarded, for unexplained reasons, as sacrosanct and immutable. [4]

After being nominated by George H. W. Bush and approved by the United States Senate, Markman served as a United States Attorney in Michigan from 1989 to 1993. He joined the private sector firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone in Detroit, [3] where he practiced until he was appointed to the 4th District Michigan Court of Appeals by Governor John Engler in 1995. [5] He held that position until 1999, when Governor Engler appointed him to the Michigan Supreme Court. Michigan voters elected him to the position in 2000. [3]

Since 1993, Markman has taught constitutional law at Hillsdale College, where he holds the title of distinguished visiting professor of Politics. [2]

Markman has contributed to numerous legal publications and was a contributing editor at National Review. He is a Fellow of the Michigan Bar Foundation, a Master of the Bench of the Inns of Court. Markman was sent to Ukraine by the State Department to assist in developing the country's post-Soviet constitution. [3]

Markman was re-elected as Supreme Court judge in 2004 and 2012. [3]

Markman served as chief justice in 2017 and 2018. He did not seek another two years in 2019, and was replaced by Bridget Mary McCormack. [6] Markman's term on the Supreme Court was up for re-election in 2020. However, Markman was ineligible to run due to Michigan's Constitution prohibiting judges that are 70 or older running for office. Markman was 71 in November 2020.

Judicial philosophy

Markman has argued against an increased role by the judiciary in matters of public policy and suggested that unless citizens engage in a constitutional debate, public matters will be increasingly decided by judges. [7] In 2008, Markman wrote a piece for the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy saying, "[T]he Michigan Supreme Court has set as its priority the proper exercise of the 'judicial power,' to read the law evenhandedly and give it meaning by assessing its words, its grammar and syntax, its context, and its legislative purpose. The court's dominant premise has been on 'getting the law right'—moving toward the best and most faithful interpretation of the law—rather than reflexively acquiescing in prior case law that essentially reflected little more than the personal preferences of predecessor justices." [8]

In April 2010, Markman published an essay in Hillsdale College's monthly publication, Imprimis, in which he argued against a living constitution with expanded input from judicial governance. Markman prefers an interpretation closer to the 1787 Constitution, and predicts that unless citizens act, justices making under-the-radar decisions on "forgettable and mundane disputes" (as opposed to high–profile decisions such as Roe v. Wade) will steer public policy in directions of their choosing in such areas as "racial quotas, social services funding, and immigration policy." Markman prefers that public policy decisions be made by legislators instead of judges. [7]

Notable Supreme Court decisions

Domestic partner benefits

In Pride at Work v. Governor of Michigan , the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5–2 ruling, ruled that Michigan's 2004 gay marriage ban also bars same-sex domestic partners of public employees from receiving health insurance benefits. Markman wrote the majority opinion for the court where he said that while "marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar." [9]

Ballot petition signatures

In Michigan Civil Rights Initiative v. Board of State Canvassers, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative should be placed on the November 2008 ballot, even if some petition signers signed the petition under the belief that it was in support of affirmative action. In his opinion, Markman wrote, "The signers of these petitions did not sign the oral representations made to them by circulators; rather they signed written petitions that contained the actual language of the MCRI. ... In carrying out the responsibilities of self-government, 'we the people' of Michigan are responsible for our own actions. In particular, when the citizen acts in what is essentially a legislative capacity by facilitating the enactment of a constitutional amendment, he cannot blame others when he signs a petition without knowing what it says. It is not to excuse misrepresentations, when they occur, to recognize nonetheless that it is the citizen's duty to inform himself about the substance of a petition before signing it, precisely in order to combat potential misrepresentations." [10]

Emergency powers of the Michigan executive

In re Certified Questions (Midwest Institute Of Health, PLLC v Governor), contrary to his prior advocacy of judicial restraint, Markman ruled for a fragmented court that Michigan's Emergency Management Act of 1976 (EMA) and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act of 1945 (EPGA) were an "unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution." The decision was "handed down by a narrow majority of Republican justices." [11] [12] Michigan became an outlier. At this time, every state and the Federal government had declared an emergency due to the CoViD-19 pandemic. [11] [12] [13]

Michigan's lower courts had previously ruled against the Republican-controlled legislature. [11] [12] This decision was an advisory opinion via a Federal lawsuit by outpatient medical providers over an order by Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer that barred nonessential medical procedures during the pandemic. [11] [12]

Personal life

Markman lives in Mason, Michigan with his wife, Mary Kathleen, and their sons Charles and James. [3]

See also

List of justices of the Michigan Supreme Court

Related Research Articles

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial Yuan</span> Judicial branch of Taiwan

The Judicial Yuan is the judicial branch of the government of Taiwan. It runs a Constitutional Court and oversees all systems of courts of Taiwan, including ordinary courts like the supreme court, high courts, district courts as well as special courts like administrative courts and disciplinary courts. By Taiwanese law, the Judicial Yuan holds the following powers:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Pakistan</span> Highest authority court of Pakistan

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apex court in the judicial hierarchy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Philippines</span> Highest court in the Philippines

The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema, is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Warren Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969

The Warren Court was the period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1953 to 1969 when Earl Warren served as the chief justice. The Warren Court is often considered the most liberal court in U.S. history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colombian Constitution of 1991</span> Colombias current Constitution

The Political Constitution of Colombia of 1991, is the Constitution of the Republic of Colombia. It was promulgated in Constitutional Gazette number 114 on Thursday, July 4, 1991, and is also known as the Constitution of Human Rights. It replaced the Political Constitution of 1886 and was issued during the presidency of the liberal César Gaviria, with ideas from the also liberal Luis Carlos Galán.

Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The term usually implies that judges make rulings based on their own views rather than on precedent. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to judicial interpretation, statutory interpretation, and separation of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Nepal</span> Highest court in Nepal

The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty Judges and a Chief Justice.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A Supreme Court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction, however, this is typically limited to constitutional law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ratification Cases</span>

The Ratification Cases, officially titled as Javellana v. Executive Secretary, was a 1973 Supreme Court of the Philippines case that allowed the 1973 Philippine Constitution to come into full force, which led to President Ferdinand Marcos staying in office and ruling by decree until he was ousted by the People Power Revolution in 1986. The decision became the cornerstone of subsequent decisions whenever the validity of the 1973 Constitution was questioned.

Philippine habeas corpus cases are cases decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which invoke the writ of habeas corpus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert P. Young Jr.</span> American judge (born 1951)

Robert P. Young Jr. is a former justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Young was first appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court in 1999, elected in 2000 and 2002, and again won reelection in 2010 for a term ending in 2019. Justice Young announced he would be retiring from the court at the end of April 2017. Young is a self-described judicial traditionalist or textualist. In June 2017, Young announced his intentions to run against Debbie Stabenow in the 2018 senate race, but later dropped out saying he could not raise enough money for his campaign.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands their right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware that they have the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right.

Brian K. Zahra is a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. He was appointed to fill a vacancy by Governor Rick Snyder in 2011. Zahra won his bid for reelection in 2022 to retain his seat for eight more years, per the Michigan Constitution.

The law of Virginia consists of several levels of legal rules, including constitutional, statutory, regulatory, case law, and local laws. The Code of Virginia contains the codified legislation that define the general statutory laws for the Commonwealth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the Supreme Court of Pakistan</span>

The History of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, organised by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, follows from its constitutional establishment in 1947 till its recent events. The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the highest appellate court of the country and court of last resort— the final arbiter of the law and the Constitution.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

References

  1. ↑ Michigan Manual, 1995–1996. 534: Michigan Legislative Council: Legislative Service Bureau. 1995. p. 534. ISBN   9781878210067.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. 1 2 "Faculty Profile: Stephen J Markman". Hillsdale College. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Biographies of the Justices". Michigan Supreme Court. Archived from the original on 16 September 2009. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
  4. 1 2 Stephen J. Markman (February 18, 1987). "In Defense Of Reconsidering Miranda". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2010-05-21.
  5. ↑ "Swearing-In Ceremony for Justice Stephen J. Markman". Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
  6. ↑ "Bridget McCormack named chief justice of Michigan Supreme Court".
  7. 1 2 Stephen J. Markman (2010-05-21). "The Coming Constitutional Debate: A Citizen's Guide". Center for Constitutional Studies & Citizenship – Hillsdale College. Retrieved 2010-05-21. This paper argues that unless citizens, those to whom this paper is addressed, engage the constitutional debate, it will be settled—without their participation—by judges. To be decided, whether through debate or by judicial imposition, is whether "we the people" will live under the Constitution of James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln, or under what is called here the "twenty-first century constitution."
  8. ↑ Markman, Stephen J. (2008). "Resisting the Ratchet" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 31 (3): 983–987. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 March 2012. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
  9. ↑ "National Pride at Work v. Governor of Michigan" (PDF). Michigan Supreme Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 February 2012. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
  10. ↑ "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative v. Board of State Canvassers" (PDF). Michigan Supreme Court. Retrieved 18 June 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  11. 1 2 3 4 Boucher, Dave; Spangler, Todd (October 2, 2020). "Michigan Supreme Court rules against Whitmer on emergency powers but effect unclear". Detroit Free Press . Retrieved 2020-10-03.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Alsup, Dave; Cullinane, Susannah (October 2, 2020). "Michigan Supreme Court strikes down governor's emergency Covid powers". CNN . Retrieved 2020-10-03.
  13. ↑ Axelrod, Tal (October 3, 2020). "Michigan Supreme Court strikes down governor's continued state of emergency". The Hill . Retrieved 2020-10-03.
Stephen Markman
69th Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court
In office
January 6, 2017 –January 9, 2019
Legal offices
Preceded by Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court
1999–2020		Succeeded by
Preceded by Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court
2017–2019		Succeeded by
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.