Justice Job Interview Questions

[Shadowy Man]

Listening to the hearings on Judge Barrett, it seems to me that judges seem to not have to answer any relevant question lest they give clues as to how they might rule in future cases. What questions are there that they would be willing to answer that actually is relevant to their potential quality as a justice? What is even the metric for deciding if a person would be a "good" justice?

I would think one good question might be, in a typical job interview sense, something like: "tell me about a case in which you made a ruling that was contrary to your personal views or values because the law and process didn't support them?"

Any other ideas for actual questions? It would seem to me the bar is actually quite low for getting through a hearing, especially after seeing the Kavanaugh hearing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For her?

• What value is in a SCOTUS decision if there is no longer an emphasis on precedence?
• How many times can SCOTUS change its mind before it becomes partisan?
• How hard must SCOTUS consider in contracting the rights of Americans?

 

[Shadowy Man]

For her?

• What value is in a SCOTUS decision if there is no longer an emphasis on precedence?
• How many times can SCOTUS change its mind before it becomes partisan?
• How hard must SCOTUS consider in contracting the rights of Americans?

Those don't come across as interview questions for a specific candidate to assess their qualifications for the position to which they are "applying". Maybe the first one. A candidate's opinion on precedence would seem a good topic to discuss, and it seemed like she was saying that she believed in precedent, but on specific issues she just goes to the "I can't speak to that because it might give clues to what I might rule later".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For her?

• What value is in a SCOTUS decision if there is no longer an emphasis on precedence?
• How many times can SCOTUS change its mind before it becomes partisan?
• How hard must SCOTUS consider in contracting the rights of Americans?

Those don't come across as interview questions for a specific candidate to assess their qualifications for the position to which they are "applying". Maybe the first one. A candidate's opinion on precedence would seem a good topic to discuss, and it seemed like she was saying that she believed in precedent, but on specific issues she just goes to the "I can't speak to that because it might give clues to what I might rule later".

She is qualified for the job, with her background in Constitutional Law. What is in question is her ability to appreciate what is required from SCOTUS to ensure Constitutional sustainability (a term I just invented). The third question is most certainly aimed to see how she feels regarding the retraction of a right. SCOTUS has laid down the existence of some rights. She is being named to the bench to rescind the right to one's own Reproductive health via Roe v Wade, and the GOP themselves chillingly brought up Griswold v Connecticut.

The question is, how can SCOTUS review the rights of individuals and assert a right exists and then later rescind that right. And any mention of Dred Scot in the answer leads to immediate ejector seat out of the building.

 

[Politesse]

I don't think they are really interviews, so much as opportunities for politicians to yammer a bit. Or in this case, to try and delay the confirmation. It hasn't been about qualifications since 1987 (Reagan, Bork) Have you ever heard of a Senator since then changing their mind on whether to confirm a candidate, based on something disclosed in the confirmation hearing, in a way that changed the outcome of the eventual vote?

I've had too little patience to listen to the current round of hearings. I'm honestly embarrassed to hear all the naked partisanship around this particular confirmation, and it reminds me of why, in times of less crisis, I refuse any Partty affiliation whatsoever. "We think (s)he won't rule the way we want her to later" sounds more like an admission of political corruption to me than a legitimate standard in confirming a judge of any court.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I know it’s not a job interview per se. I was just musing as if it were:

Interviewer: can you tell me how you would perform on the job?

Candidate: no, because that would prejudice my work.

Interviewer: well then can I base your expected performance on your past performance in other jobs?

Candidate: no, because that would be unfair to me.