Ann Arbor Democrats endorse University of Michigan law professor for Michigan Supreme Court

Posted on Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 5:57 a.m.

Ann Arbor Democrats endorse University of Michigan law professor for Michigan Supreme Court

By Ryan J. Stanton

The Ann Arbor Democratic Party has endorsed University of Michigan law professor Bridget McCormack in her bid for Michigan Supreme Court justice.

Party leaders said McCormack shares their values and has a proven track record of trial experience, a commitment to justice and the ability to make tough decisions.

Bridget McCormack

Ann Arbor News file photo

"Bridget Mary McCormack exhibits fine family values as the daughter of a United States Marine and a clinical social worker, mother of four children attending public schools, and the committed wife of a complimentary legal professional and good husband," reads a resolution passed by the party and signed by co-chairs Mike Henry and Anne Bannister.

McCormack is co-director of the Innocence Clinic at U-M's law school. She's never been a judge but she told the AP last month her years as an advocate and teacher make her qualified for the Supreme Court. Three seats are up in the November election.

In 2010, the Innocence Clinic won the release of a Calhoun County man who spent 25 years in prison for the murder of a teenager. There was no physical evidence against him.

The clinic also won the case of a Detroit man who was in prison for murder for about 10 years until 2009.

Democrats will pick Supreme Court nominees at a statewide endorsement convention on March 10. McCormack is seeking the party's nomination.

McCormack was expected to be on hand Wednesday night as the Ann Arbor Democratic Party held an endorsement mixer at The Earle restaurant in downtown Ann Arbor.

Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.

Comments

HBA

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 7:44 p.m.

If the word "complimentary" is meant to be "complementary" then the question is: complementary to what?

Martin Church

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.

Just what we need a social worker on the bench. The Michigan Social Worker program has been in such good work they are now ready to take on the law. I hate to think what this will mean. No more parents, no more teachers just judges telling you what to think and when you can not do something. I say no thanks

The Black Stallion3

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 2:12 p.m.

This is not a good idea and if nominated I will elaborate.

mGill

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.

A non-practicing attorney as a supreme court justice. Hmmm. In my experience, legal educators are people who are competant regarding the law, but not mentally strong enough to handle the rigors of application in an actual court room setting. Not exactly who I want making near irreversible decisions.

ordmad

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.

It's like you didn't read the article. She's both a practicing attorney and legal educator, and, by all accounts, excellent at both. She's got my vote.

rusty shackelford

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.

I once heard a lawyer say jokingly that the only real requirement for a judge in MI is to have an Irish sounding name. She passes the test!

Mike D.

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 12:47 p.m.

If Mike Henry and Anne Bannister really sent out a resolution with a 5th Grade grammatical error, our party is truly screwed. And what is up with McCormack's photo? Could she not find anything better to wear than her Lululemon workout top? Or a more appropriate pose? It's no wonder right-wingers are eating our lunch when we can't even get things like basic appearance and word usage correct. Oy vey.

SEC Fan

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.

We have new contestants for Foxworthy's game show...

trespass

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 12:08 p.m.

Nice person and probably a good lawyer but does she have a judicial temperment? Can she be dispassionate and analytical rather than emotionally invested and an advocate. I listened to her speak and she was very vague when asked about her decision making process. Also, as a presumably former and possibly future UM law professor, would she recuse herself from cases involving UM? I support having more Democrats on the court but I am not sure this was the best candidate.

lugemachine

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 11:32 a.m.

Her husband is complimentary? Trying to wrap my mind around that word in this context... Does he frequently tell her she looks wonderful? Or perhaps he comes free-of-charge. Or perhaps they meant "complementary".

SEC Fan

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.

thank you for the complimentary remedial grammar lesson :-)

Linda Peck

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 11:31 a.m.

While she surely is a lovely person, she has never been a judge and to be put forward for Supreme Court without this background seems a bit off to me.

craigjjs

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.

Lack of experience as a trial judge is not a detriment to a Supreme Court judge. The role of an appellate judge is quite different than a trial judge and the combination of an academic and advocacy career are quite appropriate.

cinnabar7071

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 12:02 p.m.

"You have no idea what you are talking about." " Tea Party crazies " LOL! Your reasoning has changed my mind. You must have been top of your class.

alfonso

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 11:45 a.m.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Four of the present justices are Tea Party crazies and need to be replaced when their terms are up.