Opinion
No. 113567.
March 18, 1999.
On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration and for stay of proceedings before the Judicial Tenure Commission are considered, and they are GRANTED. Under Const 1963, art 6, §§ 4 30 and MCR 9.203(C), this Court is not limited to acting after the Judicial Tenure Commission has concluded its proceedings, but rather may exercise superintending control to restrict and control the orders of the master or commission. The complaint for superintending control is considered, and we ORDER that this case be argued and submitted as a calendar matter only as to the limited matters ordered to be briefed below. We direct the parties to file briefs and appendices prepared in conformance with MCR 7.306 through 7.309. The parties shall limit their briefs to the questions whether (a) a formal complaint may be defended on a ground in the nature of a statute of limitations, (b) whether such a defense, if accepted, should be developed as a court rule, or as an application of laches or due process, or in some other manner, (c) whether such a defense, if accepted, should include a tolling or discovery provision, and (d) how such a defense, if accepted, pertains to the present case. The brief and appendix of respondent judge are to be filed not later than April 8, 1999 and the brief of the Judicial Tenure Commission is to be filed not later than April 22, 1999 the Clerk is directed to place this matter on the May, 1999 Session for argument and submission.
The motion to strike is DENIED.
The motion to dismiss remains pending.
I must disagree with this unusual order. Heretofore, the Supreme Court has understood its role to be that of final arbiter, acting after the Judicial Tenure Commission concludes its proceedings and offers a recommendation. In this instance, the Formal Complaint includes allegations of serious misconduct. Rather than file an answer, however, the respondent seeks dismissal of the proceedings on a defense which itself has a factual component. None of the facts asserted by the Judicial Tenure Commission or by the respondent have yet been confirmed by testimony or tested by cross-examination. An experienced and able Master — a highly respected former circuit judge — stands ready to hear this matter. The case belongs in his court, not ours.
Kelly, J., joins in the statement of Cavanagh, J.