To be sure, Justice Markman, writing for the majority, and Chief Justice Young, in dissent, were in sharp disagreement about what outcome the Confrontation Clause requires on the facts in People v. Fackelman (PDF). It's an interesting case that should be read in its entirety (or at least visited in summary form in the eJournal). But also interesting is the July 28 Gongwer news item on the case, commenting on the "rare biting intraparty disagreement." Gongwer is a subscription news source invaluable for following the arcane ins and outs of the legislative process in Lansing, and the highs and lows of political intrigue. But it would be refreshing if reporting about the judiciary took a step back from viewing judicial decisionmaking through the same partisan lens with which it, rightfully, views legislative maneuvers. Both parties, last we checked, support the 6th amendment.