Opinion ID: 848846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: principles of the adversary system

Text: The majority's disingenuous response to the dissenting opinions requires clarification. The majority claims that any briefing on the propriety of the rule in McCummings would be a waste of time because additional briefing would not assist this Court in addressing this question of law. Op. at 58. This comment flies in the face of the foundations of our adversarial system, in which the parties frame the issues and arguments for a (presumably) passive tribunal. The adversarial system ensures the best presentation of arguments and theories because each party is motivated to succeed. Moreover, the adversarial system attempts to ensure that an active judge refrain from allowing a preliminary understanding of the issues to improperly influence the final decision. This allows the judiciary to keep an open mind until the proofs and arguments have been adequately submitted. [8] In spite of these underlying concerns, the majority today claims that the benefits of full briefing are simply a formality that can be discarded without care. The majority fails to comprehend how the skilled advocates in this case could have added anything insightful in the debate over the proper interpretation of a century's worth of precedent. Whatever its motivation, the majority undermines the foundations of our adversarial system. The majority also implies that the central question in this case was whether the charter's purported creation of a cause of action for sexual orientation discrimination is preempted by the GTLA. Op. at 58. However, the extent of the parties' preemption briefing focused solely on the relevance of the Civil Rights Act vis-a-vis the charter-created cause of action. Moreover, the questions by this Court during oral argument do not substitute for proper briefing, but only illustrate how the Court pursues its own end in a fashion unanticipated by the parties. While occasionally a court may find it necessary to resolve an issue not briefed by the parties, the frequency with which the majority undertakes such activist endeavors demonstrates its desire to arrive at its destination. [9]