Let us continue the hypothetical and philosophical Story of the Clan to illustrate how judicial misconduct might unfold in an environment where no effective corrective mechanisms are in place. In principle, concerns about judicial behavior could be referred to an oversight body, such as the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, which is responsible for reviewing potential misconduct or significant errors. However, in this hypothetical learning scenario, the capacity for meaningful oversight is limited or ineffective at lower courts.
For context, the Story of the Clan is a learning tool—an allegory designed to explores how systems can fail when influenced by bias, partisanship, corruption, or group loyalty (The third world stuff that is precursor metric to wider issues.). It includes elements such as targeted harassment, fabricated investigations, religious or racial prejudice, preferential treatment of connected individuals, exploitation of vulnerable populations, damaging rumors, and clandestine agreements within judicial settings. These actions culminate in a systemic failure of justice.
This breakdown occurs, in part, because of close personal networks and distorted loyalties that underline implicit values that shape institutional outcomes. They didn't correct because they didn't have the moral conscious to correct. Individuals perceived as outsiders or out-group members are quickly marginalized, and their contributions and reasonable concerns carry little weight once they have been dehumanized by bad apples within the system. What is lost in this process is not merely fairness for specific individuals or even out group members but the weakening of foundational principles that underpin the rule of law. Justice becomes contingent on social, religious and political affiliation rather than objective standards.
In a well-functioning system, we would expect avenues for review and correction. Yet in environments where partisanship, institutional culture, or social expectations influence decision-making, such revisions may not occur. Victims are left without recourse when the purpose of the law is subordinated to socially preferred or political outcomes, leading to a decline in public trust and weakening commitment to impartial justice.
(In this story we reverse that and a positive adaptation occurs to the benefit of everyone and in greater alignment to social contracts so just be patient. It can influence the performance of the whole. This is why good citizens always want to improve systems around our agreed upon core universal vaues.)
While this scenario is presented as a conceptual learning tool, it reflects the reality that institutions are not always in an ideal state and must continually adapt wisely. No matter where they are currently they are always becoming and changing. How they are becoming and what direction they lead to is up to us. Strong impartial justice influences the social and economic system based on foundational assumptions. There is always room for improvement, and individuals within the system may not perceive problems in the same way others do. The poor and minorities often have no voice. Not always by accident. Oversight bodies and review committees play an important role in providing checks and balances, although their effectiveness depends heavily on their processes, independence, and the integrity of their members.
Not specifically related to our philosophical story,
Michigan Judicial Conduct Board Director Forced Out
The Judicial Tenure Commission and the Judicial Ethics Committee
In Michigan, the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) is an independent constitutional body that investigates allegations of judicial misconduct and recommends appropriate discipline. The State Bar’s Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics, by contrast, focuses on prevention, offering guidance, advisory opinions, and education to help judges understand and follow ethical standards.
State of Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
The State Bar of Michigan’s Judicial Ethics Committee reviews and provides guidance on the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct and related professional conduct standards for judges and judicial candidates.
-
The committee issues informal advisory opinions on judicial ethics, updates these opinions when rules or laws change, and offers resources to help judges interpret ethical obligations.