Ex-Con Hired as Law Clerk for Michigan Supreme Court Justice, Then Resigns After Controversy Arises

The law clerk robbed a store and shot at police officers, and was sentenced for that in 1994.

My inclination is to say that his being driven out of the job is a shame: His crime, serious as it was, was 30 years ago, and he has apparently had a clean record since his release from prison in 2008. I don't think his long-past behavior should disqualify him from the job.

From MLive (Matthew Miller):

Newly appointed Michigan Supreme Court Justice Kyra Harris Bolden hired a former convict as a law clerk.

Pete Martel robbed a convenience store in Genessee County nearly three decades ago and "had a bit of a shootout with the police," as he put it in a 2017 interview. He spent 14 years in prison.

He also went on to earn a law degree, found a job with the State Appellate Defender Office and enrolled in a doctoral program at the University of Michigan.

But hours after The Detroit News reported on Martel's hiring and quoted Justice Richard Bernstein, a fellow Democratic nominee who campaigned with Bolden, saying he was "completely disgusted" by her decision, Martel resigned.

"I have accepted Pete Martel's resignation," Bolden said in a statement. "He did not want to be a distraction or in any way divert the Court from its important work. I respect his decision and do not intend to comment further."

I saw the 1994 date for the guilty plea at The Center Square (Scott McClallen). MLive has more from a Michigan Department of Corrections interview with Martel, which appears to be the one here:

https://soundcloud.com/field-days/pete-martel

Thanks to Howard Bashman (How Appealing) for the pointer.

Comments

[kkoshkin]

I would think this man would be held up as an example of rehabilitating one's life (assuming he had truly rehabilitated and had not shown any signs of recidivism--which I take it would be safe to assume, given that he was hired by a state supreme court justice and must have passed the Michigan Bar's character evaluation).

Obviously, nobody should be shooting at cops or robbing anything. But the passage of time and demonstrated good behavior and accomplishments must count for something.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I disagree — where is the reward for those of us who were struggling in 1994 but DIDN’T rob a store and DIDN’T shoot at cops?

[bevis the lumberjack]

So there’s no place ever for someone convicted of a crime?

[Bob from Ohio]

Not as a lawyer. He committed multiple crimes, he just got convicted of one.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He’s a lawyer, so your answer is non responsive.

Tuff on Crime applies to the end of our days? Should all of us be handled based on the worst thing we’ve ever done, or just criminals?

[Bob from Ohio]

He shouldn't be a lawyer at all.

I do judge men who commit multiple violent crimes harshly.

[a.heroic.dose]

Jesus would want you to forgive, Bob.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not so sure this is "forgiveness."

See also Matthew 21:12-17....

[Sarcastr0]

Advocate more for napalming refugees, like Jesus would want.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That poor middle is feeling awfully excluded right now.

[Flatulus]

No, it's either state supreme court clerk, or back to robbing banks. There's just no other jobs available.

[David Nieporent]

I disagree — where is the reward for those of us who were struggling in 1994 but DIDN’T rob a store and DIDN’T shoot at cops?

Not spending 14 years in prison.

[Charles Epperson]

Truth

[Dr. Ed 2]

A lot of people would gladly trade 14 years in prison for a (free) bar card and clerkship.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you name a couple?

And could you then stop agreeing with me?

(This is, of course, overlooking the fact that he didn’t get a “(free) bar card”—he had to go to law school like everyone else, and his conviction surely didn’t make that easier.)

[David Nieporent]

Not a single person on the planet would gladly trade 14 years in prison for anything, and what the fuck does a "free bar card" even mean?

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, that goes too far: There are plenty of people on death row who'd trade 14 years in prison for not frying.

[Rossami]

What David said.

He did bad stuff, he served his sentence, it's over. Stop trying to punish people beyond their actual sentence.

[Bored Lawyer]

The issue here is not punishment. He got his punishment, it's over. The issue is whether his past history makes him trustworthy to act as a lawyer. Lawyers are relied upon by clients for all kinds of things, and if they are dishonest, can massively hurt their clients.

Where this guy falls on that line, I don't know. That has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But the mere fact that you served your time does not mean you are trustworthy.

[David Nieporent]

Where this guy falls on that line, I don’t know. That has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But the mere fact that you served your time does not mean you are trustworthy.

Of course not. (And not having been convicted of a crime doesn't mean you are trustworthy, either.) But they evaluated this guy and decided he was. People here aren't contending that this evaluation was incorrect; they're just saying he should be punished more.

[CJColucci]

Your "reward" is that you didn't go to prison, and were free to make yourself into someone who might have gotten a job like the one Pete Martel just lost.

[questioner7]

"where is the reward for those of us who were struggling in 1994 but DIDN’T rob a store and DIDN’T shoot at cops" -- and DID qualify for a top law job? You're way more likely to get it than a similarly qualified guy with a record. That's your reward.

[Social Justice is neither]

You must not be paying much attention recently. We've got lawyers being praised for perjury and arson so I'm not sure what character evaluation they could fail from those low bars.

[David Nieporent]

We’ve got lawyers being praised for perjury

But enough about Trump and his legal team.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty sure it was a reference to these actual arsonists.

Well, they did eventually get disbarred, (Took a couple years!) but they got the potentially 45 years hard time reduced to 18-24 months in return for agreeing to that.

The conviction carried an automatic disbarment, but this provided the Biden administration an excuse to let them off easy, after the Trump DOJ had gone for a harsh (But more in keeping with guidelines!) sentence.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in that article supports your claim that their sentences were "reduced" "in return for agreeing to" disbarment.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's true. One link to a comment, remember?

How the Left Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Domestic Terrorism
Biden DOJ asks judge to go easy on Ivy League firebombers

"Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman were arrested in the "mostly peaceful" protests following George Floyd's murder. The two lawyers handed out Molotov cocktails to the crowd, and Rahman tossed one into a police car before fleeing the scene in Mattis's van. They reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors in October 2020 that wiped out six of the seven charges against them. Those prosecutors, nonetheless, sought a maximum 10-year sentence and argued that the incident qualified for a so-called terrorism enhancement that would turbocharge sentencing—a determination with which the U.S. Probation Office concurred.

Ginning herself up to distribute explosives to the crowd, Rahman gave a video interview in which she declared, "This shit won't ever stop until we fuckin' take it all down," adding that "the only way [the police] hear us is through violence."

Then, Garland and the U.S. attorney for New York's Eastern District, Breon Peace, who's handling the prosecution, took office, and you won't believe what happened next!

In mid-May, the same career DOJ prosecutors who argued for that 10-year sentence were back in court withdrawing their plea deal and entering a new one that allowed the defendants to cop to the lesser charge of conspiracy. It tosses out the terrorism enhancement entirely.

The new charge carries a five-year maximum sentence, but the prosecutors are urging the judge to go below that, asking for just 18 to 24 months on account of the "history and personal characteristics of the defendants" and the "aberrational nature of the defendants' conduct." Because, you know, Mattis graduated from Princeton and New York University Law School and was an attorney at the white-shoe law firm Pryor Cashman, and Rahman was a public-interest lawyer whose "best friend," Obama administration intelligence official Salmah Rizvi, guaranteed the $250,000 required to release her on bail."

In the end, 15 months, and paying for the police car. After originally pleading down from 45 years to 10 under the Trump DOJ, Biden takes over, and that was outrageously harsh, they had to be permitted to revise the plea deal even further.

[David Nieporent]

Turns out that nothing in that article says that their sentences were reduced in return for agreeing to disbarment, either!

[AmosArch]

If that bothers you you should see what they do with people (men) caught urinating next to a school and other crimes that are arguably far less severe than violent robbery that end up landing them on the sex offenders list.

Violent criminals that rob and kill people often get off very easily in some ways compared to a guy who had a drunken one night stand with the wrong person especially when it comes to how they are viewed and treated by wider society after they’re processed through their official punishment.

[Frank Drackman]

So what did they do you you for "Urinating next to a School"???

[Frank Drackman]

Wasn't this an episode on "The Office"??

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps this fellow should have follow Byron Donalds' lead and had his record expunged by political allies?

[Archibald Tuttle]

I used to serve as a prison volunteer to run a gavel club where inmates learn public speaking. That way, I got to know them quite well. I would vouch for many of them as being completely rehabilitated.

However, I made it a point to never ask them what their crime was.

Members of the public who learn about the crime, but have not spent time face-to-face with the inmate, could not be expected to trust a stranger saying, “This person is rehabilitated.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It says he'd recently graduated high school when he embarked on his brief criminal career. They stopped him before he graduated to murder.

Turning his life around appears to have been a long process, and I'm going to guess he persuaded a lot of character witnesses that he was the real deal as far as rehabilitation is concerned.

Rehabilitation so often falls flat, that when we actually see it happen we should rejoice, not bitch about it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"His crime, serious as it was, was 30 years ago"

It wasn't a one time mistake. He committed multiple armed robberies as he admitted in the link:

“I had a couple of friends that we would, we got into stealing things and stealing cars, and eventually got into armed robberies, and I ended up going to prison for an armed robbery,” he said."

He terrorized multiple people and tried to kill police officers. He should never have been permitted to become a lawyer in the first place.

It also calls the judgment of the judge into serious question.

[Jacob Grimes]

He presumably passed the character and fitness evaluation of the state bar association. Is that no longer good enough?

The guy was convicted nearly 30 years ago and has since completed a law degree and was employed in the public defender program. What more do you want him to do before you would consider him rehabilitated?

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't delegate my moral compass to a "state bar association".

Plenty of other things he can do rather than being a lawyer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Should bar associations permit white nationalists, superstitious gay-haters, old-timey misogynists, vote-suppressing racists, belligerently ignorant Islamophobes and antisemites, white supremacist xenophobes, delusional and lying election deniers, and similar societal stains to become lawyers?

[David Nieporent]

Bob, you don't have a moral compass.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bob has a compass. I was raised in a desolate small town and came to know guys like Bob from Ohio.

Their compass always points due white.

Due Christian.

Due conservative.

Due homophobe.

Due misogynist.

Due Islamophobe.

Due Republican.

Due backward.

Due deplorable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Those aren't felonies...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not felonies. Attributes of lousy, worthless people. The basket of deplorables.

[Frank Drackman]

"Know" in the Biblical sense, seeing as how you are a "Reverend"

[Krychek_2]

Oh wow, Bob has a moral compass. Who knew?

[Bob from Ohio]

Not until Sarcasto started talking about one!

[Jacob Grimes]

Because attorneys are paragons of morality?

Many jobs lack character and fitness requirements yet still provide dishonest people plenty of opportunity to screw people over who rely upon them. Accountants, mechanics, and construction contractors, are some examples. Should he be disqualified from those occupations, too?

Why even allow him to work in a kitchen, then? If you forever consider him an irredeemable scumbag for committing violent crime, why would you trust him to exercise care to prevent food-borne illness?

[Nige]

Didn’t you vote for the guy who who was found guilty of defrauding people with his University to be President of the United States?

[Brett Bellmore]

Were you under the impression that Trump was personally found guilty of fraud?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No it isn't!

Again, where is the reward for those of us who didn't do this stuff?!?

[David Nieporent]

The reward is that you didn't have to spend 14 years in prison.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He presumably passed the character and fitness evaluation of the state bar association. Is that no longer good enough?

Not when bar associations factor wokeness into their evaluations.

If they want to be credible, they need to use credible factors.

This guy may well have rehabilitated himself and be an upstanding citizen now. But you can't tell that from a bar association evaluation.

[Jacob Grimes]

I agree, based on anecdotal evidence, that wokeness has some influence among character and fitness investigators/the board, at least in my state. But I think that in this case, it might be counterbalanced by their snobbery about how glorious and righteous lawyers must be, if only to uphold public confidence in the legal system, which would count against someone with a serious criminal history.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

May well be. I do believe rehabilitation is possible, and this guy seems like he has succeeded. But I wouldn't rely on a bar association for that judgment.

[David Nieporent]

Not surprising that the guy who most prides himself around here for being an asshole would take that position.

[Jacob Grimes]

Justice Richard Bernstein sounds like an asshole. Imagine publicly condemning a close colleague's internal hiring decision that will not affect you in any way. And for what? A few political points for an election...eight years from now? Because he's desperate to be heard to despite being a state supreme court justice?

[David Nieporent]

Agreed. But Bolden also deserves criticism here, in my opinion. Get a spine.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did Bolden try to talk this guy out of resignation?

[David Nieporent]

No idea. If so, not very well. She sure didn't publicly defend him.

[Krychek_2]

If you're looking to keep people from re-offending, giving them a stake in the community by reintegrating them into it is far more likely to accomplish that than making them into pariahs. If you don't care about the ex-offenders, maybe care about the harm to society from not reintegrating them.

[KenveeB]

I think there's a whole lot of air between "can't have a job" or even "can't work as a lawyer" and "shouldn't be given a prestigious position." Clerkships, especially for a state supreme court, are prestigious positions that are supposed to be given to the best of the best. I don't believe that someone who engaged in this kind of pattern of behavior should be rewarded with a prestigious position like that. I'm not saying his rehabilitation is worthless or he shouldn't ever be allowed to get a job as a lawyer, but that's not the question here. Your past choices can limit your future opportunities. That's just a fact of life.

[Krychek_2]

But he's not being rewarded for his past bad behavior; he's being rewarded for having overcome his past bad behavior.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And how many law school graduates with better school records were elbowed aside to make this social justice statement?

[Krychek_2]

For as much as we know, none. You're assuming facts not in evidence.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I assumed no facts; I asked a question. You are the one assuming I assumed something.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He answered your question. “We don’t know”.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He also assumed facts not in evidence, which I was responding to.

[David Nieporent]

You are the one assuming I assumed something.

You assumed that the justice was trying to make a social justice statement, rather than trying to pick the most qualified person.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No I did not. I assumed understanding of ordinary English.

And how many law school graduates with better school records were elbowed aside to make this social justice statement?

If you want to focus on those final words and ignore the question which assumes I don't know the answer, that's up to you and your conscience.

[Leo Marvin]

Oh, cut it out. It’s not ignoring anything. Your question contains different clauses which have different meanings. You allowed for uncertainty as to how many better qualified candidates were elbowed aside (though the rhetorical implication is that you believe a non-zero number were). But your question allows no uncertainty that giving him the job made a social justice statement. That’s ordinary English.

[David Nieporent]

But your question allows no uncertainty that giving him the job made a social justice statement. That’s ordinary English.

Right, but it's not just that it did make a social justice statement; his question says that the judge intended to make such a statement.

[Leo Marvin]

Yeah, that’s how I posted it at first. But then I edited to the more modest version because I decided his question could be read to condition the judge’s intention on the same uncertainty as the number “elbowed aside,” (i.e., if no one was elbowed aside it's conceivable the social messaging wasn't the judge's reason for giving him the job). It’s a tortured reading, but I’m bending all the way over to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Jacob Grimes]

It may be prestigious, but it's still a matter of an individual justice making a choice of who he or she thinks is the best fit for a position that almost exclusively serves and interacts solely within her office. Certainly Bolden had many qualified applicants, but for whatever reason, she chose that guy. How can any of us say that we know better than Bolden who should work for her?

[Area Man]

I agree. There's a middle ground between complete pariah and working in a prestigious position of real influence. I clerked at a state supreme court, and, even when it's only a year, it's a very influential job that can make a real difference on the jurisprudence of a state.

And this wasn't just some stole-a-six-pack-from-a-corner-store crime. Being the victim of an armed robbery or being shot at can have life-changing effects, even if you didn't suffer physical harm. (Certainly much more than the "psychological harm" suffered by many people who call for canceling others who say things they don't like.) Imagine being one of this guy's victims and then finding out that he's having a say on the criminal law of your state.

Let him have a job, even as a lawyer, somewhere else. You forfeit certain opportunities when you make certain decisions.

[Jacob Grimes]

When you got the clerkship, was it offered as a reward for a being a good boy growing up? Or because you displayed the character and qualifications necessary to perform the job?

This line of argument really sounds like "he's still a bad person and so doesn't deserve the job" rather than "his past acts make him unqualified for the job."

[Area Man]

"When you got the clerkship, was it offered as a reward for a being a good boy growing up? Or because you displayed the character and qualifications necessary to perform the job?"

I'd imagine both since I had to pass a criminal background check, and I can't imagine a situation where I would have beaten the other qualified candidates who didn't have aggravated robbery and aggravated assault on their records.

"This line of argument really sounds like 'he’s still a bad person and so doesn’t deserve the job' rather than 'his past acts make him unqualified for the job.'"

Well, yes and no. No, because I have no idea if he's still a bad person as I don't know him personally. If he's truly rehabilitated, good on him.

But, yes, I do think certain bad acts disqualify someone from certain jobs for the rest of their lives. If he were a fully-rehabilitated child molester, he wouldn't be fit to be a school teacher for the rest of his life, full stop. (Frankly, he should be disqualified from almost every job for such a crime, even if fully rehabilitated.) I think Martel should be able to be a lawyer, but not a law clerk to a state supreme court justice, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable middle ground for his past heinous acts. Some crimes--even some felonies--are not as bad as others. But armed robbery and shooting at people are sufficiently bad to take that particular job off the table forever.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He wouldn't be allowed to teach high school in Maine (or most states) -- I know someone who did a lot less (B&E) who was banned for life.

[Frank Drackman]

for Buggery and Ejaculating on young boys? should have executed the Bastard

[David Nieporent]

Do you have an actual statutory citation, or is this just another "A cop I know told me it?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/fingerprinting/

[Absaroka]

Well, WA also requires background checks and fingerprints for teachers. But AFAICT burglary isn't one of the disqualifying crimes - only various kinds of crimes against children. So I'm not sure your link is responsive to DMN's question.

[David Nieporent]

What does a list of proposed and actual laws about criminal background checks have to do with your claim that a criminal record is disqualifying?

In fact, my quick research suggested otherwise (see https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/5/title5sec5303.html), but I'm not a Maine lawyer and I know the perils of doing quick legal research that way,¹ and so I was wondering if you actually had anything or if it was just your usual made up crap.

¹Like, is there a separate provision elsewhere that applies to teaching licenses?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Being the victim of an armed robbery or being shot at can have life-changing effects, even if you didn’t suffer physical harm."

Libs don't care about crime victims, only criminals.

[Nige]

Libs care so much about crime victims they believe in rehabilitating criminals so they don't go making more victims. Cons care so much about crime victims they want to keep the recidivism rates up so they can keep making more of them.

[David Nieporent]

Your past choices can limit your future opportunities. That’s just a fact of life.

Don't try to pass the buck. You're trying to limit his future opportunities. His past choices aren't.

I don’t believe that someone who engaged in this kind of pattern of behavior should be rewarded with a prestigious position like that.

A clerkship is not a reward for being a good person.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd respect him more if he wasn't a Shyster, Armed Robbery is one thing, but Lawyering????

Frank "Not either one"

[Bob from Ohio]

Finally a good counterpoint to mine.

[Absaroka]

What do people think about other crimes? What if, for example, his crime was rape?

[Rossami]

I can't speak for others but my opinion is that once you complete your sentence, it's done. Flat, absolute and no qualifications.

Yes, former felons should automatically get their right to vote back. Yes, former felons should automatically get their 2nd Amendment rights back. Yes, you should be able to work in any job that someone will hire you for. Yes, all offender "registries" and other pretextually-administrative-but-actually-punitive limitations should be absolutely abolished.

And no, it doesn't matter what the crime. The crime determines the sentence - and that's it.

[Social Justice is neither]

I'm fine with government treating you as if nothing happened once you're through your sentence but for any ongoing relationship like employment that just doesn't work as well because people don't have factory resets.

He may be perfectly qualified and a model story but his past and the current political climate overshadows that and I think he recognized that. Ultimately this is the problem with breaking the rules for favored people, any outside observer will have no means of telling if you're being fair or not based on objective qualifications we can all attempt to achieve. Unless armed robbery and attempted murder are traits you want to encourage?

[David Nieporent]

breaking the rules for favored people

What on earth does this refer to?

Unless armed robbery and attempted murder are traits you want to encourage?

No; rehabilitation is.

[Absaroka]

"Yes, you should be able to work in any job that someone will hire you for."

I agree to some extent - as a private employer, I wouldn't hire a convicted embezzler in a job with good opportunities for embezzlement, and I wouldn't hire a someone who had molested children as a nanny for my kids - but you should be able to hire them if you want.

But what about positions of public trust? Imagine a police officer who is convicted of, say, pulling over women on deserted roads and raping them. After he is released, Podunk PD wants to hire him. Is that just the Podunk PD's hiring decision to make? Podunk's decision gives him power over your daughter on her late night commutes through Podunk.

Your view is that a state law prohibiting hiring ex-cons as cops is wrong?

[Rossami]

Legally, a state law about the hiring cops is the state setting it's own hiring practices (because municipalities have no independent legal authority and are entirely subordinate to their respective states). So, yes, a state could pass such a law.

But absent that factor, I do think that if Podunk PD's hiring manager believes that your former-felon-policeman is fully rehabilitated, my fears should not be allowed to trump that hiring manager's considered judgement. That said, if their judgement was wrong, the cop will go back to jail for whatever new crimes he commits and the Podunk PD Chief will reap the political consequences of their poor judgement.

[Flatulus]

That's a bizarre attitude to have, since legislatures assign arbitrary sentence ranges onto crimes and judges can vary greatly as to what they would give within those ranges. Also, release at the completion of the sentence is typically automatic, there's no evaluation of whether he's "reformed." Your belief in the sentence as the true measurement of the criminal's fitness to reenter society is superstitious bullshit.

[ragebot]

For all you peeps who have been state SC clerks, or tried for the position, are what I will call straight up qualifications more or less important than what I will call virtue signaling. Not much question in my mind Biden picked Jackson to signal his virtue and ignored other better qualified candidates. So it is easy to think this happens all the way down the food chain.

[Mitch]

Judge Janice Rogers Brown hired a former robbery convict for a D.C. Circuit clerkship. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/shon-hopwood-richard-kopf_n_3825152 It seemed to work out well, and none of the Circuit judges objected. https://www.hopwoodsinghal.com/shon-hopwood

[Social Justice is neither]

Perception is everything. Janice Roger's Brown isn't any sort of SJW so accusations would fall on deaf ears and the SJWs themselves wouldn't tear apart one of their victim classes without good reason. Ultimately people could trust the pick was based on qualification and not other considerations.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure right-wing judges hire based on accomplishment rather than conservatism (and superstition, with at least a bit of bigotry)?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Judge Rogers Brown and her circuit colleagues also don’t have voters to face.

[Davy C]

I might actually have been more concerned about him having a clerkship if he had been convicted of something like embezzlement rather than armed robbery. It's not like the guy is going to bring a gun to the courthouse and demand all the bail money.

[Frank Drackman]

But he might, and he's missing out on the easiest gig of all, being a Mob "Mouthpiece" I'd think twice before testifying against one of his clients.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Mr. Martel does seem to have turned his life around. Good for him, and I wish him well.

On the other hand, actions have consequences and some actions have consequences that last for the rest of your life. I’m confident Justice Sociis would be able to attract enough qualified clerks who hadn’t ever robbed a convenience store.

On the third hand, I presume Justice Bolden knew about this history when she made the job offer. If she thought hiring a reformed criminal was the right thing to do, she should have defended her clerk and her decision when the information became public. If I had a choice between trusting her or Mr. Martel, I know where I’d land.

[bacchys]

A lot of people showing their authoritarian stripes on this one.

The Michigan Supreme Court justice who publicly criticized this choice, Richard Bernstein should resign. His "I support law enforcement" shows he's too biased to fairly judge issues involving law enforcement.

[David Nieporent]

Good point.

I was focused on Martel, but this story should really be more about Bernstein. He's not fit to be a judge. With statements like, "I’m a Democrat, but I’m also intensely pro-law enforcement, and this is a slap in the face to every police officer in the state of Michigan," how can he not be required to recuse himself from every criminal case? Can you imagine suing a cop for violating your rights, and having a guy saying "I'm intensely pro-law enforcement" deciding your case?

And lest you think for Bernstein this is just about how Martel shouldn't be a clerk, Bernstein goes on to say about Bolden, "I’m no longer talking to her. We don’t share the same values." Either he's an asshole or he's pandering for votes. (Por qué no los dos?)

(Of course, this shows the problem with electing judges.)

[Will Nonya]

S'all good man.

[tkamenick]

I know that of course not all commenters here are libertarian, but this is one of the most stark examples of them I've ever seen here, wow.

[David Nieporent]

I don't want to sound all Kirkland here, but on what planet would one read the VC for more than a few days and think that "not all" commenters are libertarian, rather than "almost none" are?

The most libertarian blogger here is Prof. Somin; look at the vitriol almost all of his posts attract from commenters.

[Ridgeway]

To be fair, libertarianism, when taken to its logical extremes, as Prof Somin does with his writings on immigration and takings, is objectively nutso.

Much of the commentariat here proves that one can reject such libertarianism but be nutso on independent grounds.

Kudos all around!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Should he be able to buy a gun"

No, of course not, he tried to murder people!