Vox Populi

Posts Tagged ‘Judicial Branch’

The Players: a Scribe to produce content: Mr. Patrick J. Wright

In broken tort reform, buying elections, ideology, MI Supreme Court, propoganda, Think tank on December 8, 2009 at 11:41 pm

We have already identified that a good, and inexpensive way to lobby the highest state court is to align, enlist or adopt an advocacy group (PAC, special interest…all really just IRS labels). We have also seen how one, lone writer can wrap up ideology in the form of editorials.

It is one such scribe which will be today’s focus: Mr. Patrick J. Wright.  He is:

is senior legal analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, where he directs the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. He joined the Center in June 2005 after serving for three years as a Michigan Supreme Court commissioner, a post in which he made recommendations to the court concerning which state appeals court cases it should hear.

We have heard about the Mackinac Center as an arm for “free market” legislation.  That is fine.  It is a free country.

I would note that when filling ones staff with experts, it is a good idea to find ones whose legal experience mirrors ones ideological profile.  That is, hire the ones who have said what you wish to say.  Assure pedigree.  Mr. Wright is the right person for this Right job.  In fact, if one is looking to influence the highest state court, find a person who worked for them, at a lower-level job (reading through the cases and making recommendations on which ones to take up) during the time that you wish to match ruling-wise (the 2003 court was very  conservative, pro-business and all about upholding “tort reform”).

Once on staff, free him up to write to his heart’s content.  You might even get him to land editorials for national news outlets.  His opinion, because it is just that, need not be grounded in fact.  In fact, facts may even begin to muck up a good argument, so be wary in employing them.

Once you have the right man for the job, produce the content, influence the vote, and let the right party win.

The Players: Think Tanks: Mackinac Center for Public Policy

In buying elections, Campaign Finance, Get the Ca$h, ideology, Think tank on December 1, 2009 at 10:26 pm

If you are wishing to position yourself for the 2010 elections–and you know you are–you first need to identify (or establish) a “think tank.”  Ignore the thinking part of the name, as your tank will produce news articles, editorials, opinions, studies, etc. that, systematically, advance your agenda.  You also need to establish these tanks as “non-partisan,” which is a nifty way to denounce anyone claiming partisanship–it is not affiliated with any party…[wink, wink].

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy (named after the island–an internal state reference–that will only confuse a poor speller) presents itself as “the Mackinac Center provide incisive, accurate and timely analysis of critical policy issues.

Of course, “non-partisan” doesn’t mean that your donor list isn’t comprised of one party/ideology over another…birds of a feather and all that.

Once you have a think tank(s), or a few dozen, then the business of ideological spamming may commence.

————————————–

What have others said about the Mackinac Canter for Public Policy?

  • The Mackinac Center is the largest conservative state-level policy think-tank in the nation. The Michigan-based organization promotes market-driven policies on a wide range of issues and espouses limited government principles. The Center’s success in influencing Michigan policies has served as a model for other state-level think tanks.  http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mackinac-center-public-policy
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Is that change I smell in the air…

In MI Supreme Court on November 18, 2009 at 5:56 pm
U.S. Supreme Court building.
Image via Wikipedia

The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted, though not published, new recusal rules that will align them with Capterton Massey–sometimes it takes a big stick from the US Feds to get something done locally.

The Lansing State Journal says:

Under rules adopted by a 4-3 majority this month, a member of the court is to step aside if the jurist’s “impartiality might objectively and reasonably be questioned.”

Further, if an individual justice receives and rejects a request for recusal, a party in the case can appeal to the full court for further consideration.

In other words, the justice whose status might be compromised does not serve as the sole arbiter of his or her ability to uphold the office.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Healthcare Reform or Tort Reform?

In Campaign Finance, medical malpractice, MI Supreme Court, Uncategorized, undo tort reform on November 12, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Healthcare Reform or Tort Reform?“, posted with vodpod

 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]