'Rule-of-law' judge? Don't be fooled. Here's what that really means

[WestMichRad]

https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2024/05/13/michigan-supreme-court-rule-of-law-candidates-elections/73474218007/

(A Detroit Free Press opinion piece by Joseph Kimble, a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Cooley Law School (Lansing MI). Some portions of this commentary appeared previously in Michigan Lawyers Weekly.)

The author addresses the question of “What is a Rule-of-law judge?”

For one thing, it’s hopelessly simplistic. Rarely — at least in appellate cases — does “the law as written” lead to a single, unmistakable result or conclusion. The law is full of vague terms whose application to facts is typically arguable: "due process," "probable cause," "reasonable doubt," "good cause" and countless others.  
(And he goes on to point out how common words can be interpreted very differently by those with different viewpoints.)

A second objection to the rule-of-law mantra — in my (opinion piece author) view, at least — is that it signals a so-called textualist approach to judging. Textualists profess to look for a law’s “ordinary meaning” by scrutinizing its words, syntax, and structure. This often involves bringing to bear a set of linguistic “canons” of construction that are highly malleable and sometimes conflicting. And it very often involves rummaging through a dictionary’s superstore of possible meanings. Textualist judges tend to have less use for legislative history, the law’s broader purpose and context, sensible policy, judicial intuition and a decision’s practical consequences.  

(In practice textualism has become the brand name for ideological conservative judging. The author published in 2017 a study of over 90 Michigan cases, decided in 2000 or later, in which the courts overruled earlier decisions.)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUrjq0OgeL0yuLNuOs_-x0tgaK5FR7aJ/view

(The author of the opinion piece) coded the cases according to their ideological tilt, and in 96.3% of cases, the tilt was conservative: they made it harder for plaintiffs to sue and recover or get relief in civil cases (think so-called tort reform), and made it easier in some way for the prosecution in criminal cases (think “tough on crime”).

(And the author points out that similar studies have found similar results from the so-called textualist justices of SCOTUS.)

All judges — not just textualists — are influenced by their backgrounds and worldviews. But textualists claim to operate on a higher plane. They are more neutral, objective, restrained. They show the proper deference to the Legislature. But in fact, their theory of interpretation is just as pliable as any other. And they seem unwilling to own up to the skewed record it has produced, especially in high-profile cases, cases that shape the law.  

So now you know.

[TexasDem69]

1. I'm not sure what I "know" after reading this opinion piece

Is the point that judges are “influenced by their background and world views”? That seems self-evident.