« Ind. Courts - More on: What is it like during a Supreme Court interview? | Main | Ind. Courts - Look for a list of semi-finalists late today »
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Ind. Courts - Day Two: Report on the second 3 interviews of Wednesday morning
This is IU-Indy Law Prof. Joel Schumm's report on the second three interviews of Day Two - check here for the photos and links for group 8.
Menges, William C. Jr. - Judge, Howard Superior Court 1
Judge Menges said a position on the Supreme Court would be attractive to any lawyer. His background includes work as a prosecutor, public defender, and now a judge. He has “no idea” how many jury trials he has tried—over 100. He did a lot of appellate work as chief public defender. He has reduced pending caseload and shortened disposition time since becoming a judge. He has a solid academic background.
One complaint trial judges have about appellate courts is a lack of connection to “real-life experience.” Specifically, he mentioned Judge Najam’s recent opinion in Gosha v. State as “a good opinion,” as long as it is narrowly followed. Judge Menges expressed concerned that notice and a hearing could lengthen what needs to be a swift process in terminating participants in drug court.
Judge Menges noted important characteristics for a supreme court justice included being a strong leader and patient. In response to Ms. Keck’s question about his experience as public defender, Judge Menges noted that most judges have been prosecutors. His work as a public defender (and prosecutor) provides some balance.
In response to Mr. McCashland's question about collegiality, he believes there has been a decline in collegiality over the past thirty years. Judge Menges thinks it is important for the Supreme Court to set a good example.
Fisher, Thomas M. - Solicitor General, Indiana Attorney General's Office
Mr. Fisher has wanted to be a judge since he clerked for Judge Kanne on the Seventh Circuit. He has considered over the years where he would want to work, as he has argued in both federal and state courts. When this current position came open, it fit well with his “career trajectory.”
Mr. McCashland observed that Mr. Fisher has a very good job now and he has “not heard a negative comment about” him. Why would he want to go to the Supreme Court? Mr. Fisher responded the Soliciter General job cannot last forever; it will turn over in the future. He has been very committed to the job but thinks being a judge is the next logical step. The SG job has been “excellent training.” The thought of serving on the SC “thrills me to no end” in making a difference for the people of the state.
In response to questions about the characteristics of an ideal justice, he cited “intellectual curiosity,” a sense of fairness, dispassion, and “open-mindedness about where the law can take us.”
In response to Mr. Gavin’s question about his lack of trial experience, Mr. Fisher opined it was not “debilitating” in any way. Each candidate brings different things; it would be “just one more thing” he could have brought. (For those suspecting Tribbett-type moments, this was the closest and more mild.)
Ms. Keck asked about ordinances restricting smoking ordinances, but Mr. Fisher was reluctant to discuss an issue that could come before the Court. Generally, though, he said the methodology would be the same as with any constitutional issue; he would look to the text and history of Constitution. Unlike some of yesterday’s candidates, he did not espouse the view of a living and evolving Constitution.
Mr. Feighner observed the Court is often unanimous, but Justice Boehm has sometimes been a swing vote in 3-2 cases. When asked how his judicial philosophy would differ from Justice Boehm’s, Mr. Fisher was hesitant to describe others. Mr. Fisher believes courts exist to resolve disputes. He is a textualist, an originalist. He would not impose his own views. He merely said sometimes Justice Boehm has disagreed with the views expressed by the Attorney General’s office. (The most recent example would be the June 30, 2010 Supreme Court decision in the voter ID case, where Justice Boehm was the lone dissent.)
Although Mr. Fisher has been involved with the Hudson Institute and the Cato Institute, he does not look to those for “opinion leadership” but rather for debate and an opportunity to keep abreast of issues. Mr. Fisher is “very much in favor” of merit selection, which is essential to judicial independence.
Ayers, Cynthia J. - Judge, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 4
Judge Ayers has been in private practice before serving on different trial courts for more than twenty years. She would bring a unique perspective, including as a single mom working full-time while in law school.
She believes judges should provide every citizen the right to redress in courts, often before a jury unlike in many countries, and on appeal.
Judge Ayers has worked for two years on a committee revising the civil jury instructions into plain English. She believes this was important but suspects some lawyers will be hesitant about some changes in the terms, as lawyers often cite the instructions in arguments to the jury.
She believes there has been a decline in collegiality (for example, more motions and requests for sanctions), but she teaches law students that “what goes around comes around” and how important it is to work well with others. They should step back and not become personally involved. She agrees many view law as a business because of the importance of billable hours.
Judge Ayers has unique experience as a probation officer before attending law school. She said alternatives to incarceration are important; we cannot afford to send everyone to prison. Electronic devices now allow for monitoring.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 7, 2010 11:40 AM
Posted to Vacancy on Supreme Ct