« Ind. Courts - Last of 3 panels of applicants for the Supreme Court vacancy to be interviewed Wednesday morning, July 7th, 2010 | Main | Ind. Courts - 1st of two panels of applicants for the Supreme Court vacancy to be interviewed Wednesday afternoon, July 7th, 2010 »

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Ind. Courts - Day One Marathon Concludes: Report on the final 4 interviews of day one!

This is Prof. Schumm's report on the final four interviews of Day One - check here for the photos and links for group 6. (Unfortunately, photos could be located online for only one of the four applicants.)

Henderson, Susan Orr - Judge, Fountain Circuit Court

The importance of geographic diversity was brought up by commission members Keck and McDonald while interviewing Judge Henderson, the only judge in rural Fountain County. In response to Ms. Keck’s question about what geography (a small rural county) would bring to the Court, Judge Henderson explained that judges in small counties have to hear all types of cases, unlike judges in larger counties, who often specialize. In response to McDonald’s comment that much of the population lives in rural counties, Judge Henderson noted that all judges face similar problems in finding and funding services. In response to Mr. Feighner’s question about what would it mean to trial court judges if one was appointed, the judge responded that she and others have a wide variety of experience, which would inform the decisionmaking on the Supreme Court.

Mr. Gavin asked a long question, which I believe was taken verbatim from this George Will column about questions to ask Elena Kagan:

Some persons argue that our nation has a "living" Constitution; the court has spoken of "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking against "changeability" and stressing "the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution," says "its whole purpose is to prevent change -- to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that 'evolving standards of decency' always 'mark progress,' and that societies always 'mature,' as opposed to rot." Is he wrong?
Judge Henderson would not say Justice Scalia was wrong, but emphasized the importance of adhering to precedent.

Owens, Bryce D. - Attorney, Owens & Owens

Mr. Owens told the commission he would bring 25 years of “work in the trenches.” Besides one year as a clerk, he has been in private practice in Pendleton (pop. 3,000) resolving problems for real people. The Chief Justice commented that many candidates had described themselves as engaged in general practice and observed this was especially true for Mr. Owens.

When asked by Mr. McCashland a question about his judicial philosophy, Mr. Owens responded, “to interfere the least possible” and “provide guidance only when necessary.”

Mr. Owens told the commission he regularly reads opinions posted online and his general practice background would be an advantage to the Court. He mentioned the Court’s recent opinion in U.S. Bank v. Integrity Land Title, stressing a need for understanding the history and evolution of the title business. His lengthy and somewhat rambling summary of title procedures did not appear to engage the commission members, who had understandably become a bit less energetic in the late afternoon. They appeared more interested in discussing sentencing disparities earlier in the day.

Spahr, Robert A. - Judge, Miami Circuit Court

Judge Spahr’s interview was easily the most awkward of the day. Although the commission members were very gracious in their questioning, the thought of Judge Spahr asking questions during oral argument or giving speeches as a representative of the Court would likely be a cause for concern. Throughout the interview he would pose questions to the members. “Do you have any other questions?” “Have you ever written a book?” “Have you ever got a call at 1:00 in the morning?” (He did when representing child services.)

In response to a question from the Chief Justice about how child services has changed over the years, Judge Spahr offered a pointed critique of the centralization of services in recent years and the accompanying restrictions on payment. As a lawyer, Spahr worked for child services for 20 years, observing he had been “blessed with intervening to protect children all his adult life.” Although counties were doing an effective job several years ago, he is gravely concerned with the direction in recent years. As a judge he is supposed to be protecting children but is concerned about “micro-managing” and cut-back in services.

When asked about the state of the judiciary, he responded that trial courts are often “confused” by appellate opinions. There is not enough direction or clarity in his view.

Finally, in response to his question to the commission about how many of them have written a book, he urged members to visit his website. (The books there are self-described on the site as a “fantasy/adventure series is geared toward grades 4-5.”) He concluded, “I’m a good writer; you will see that on the website.”

Tribbett, Donald J. - Attorney, Tribbett Law Office

In my interview preview post yesterday, I noted the importance of personality and demeanor and opined, “Arrogance, condescension, and strained or awkward conversation could work against, or eliminate, a candidate.” Of the 19 candidates interviewed today, Mr. Tribbett seemed to have the biggest problem in this department. In response to the first question from the Chief Justice about his reasons for applying, Tribbett quipped, “It’s not the money.” He noted that he could not have applied ten years ago because of financial commitments but will be making his last tuition payment in the next year. Beginning an interview by stressing the inability to live on $150,000/year stands in stark contrast to many other candidates who talked about the poor economy and efforts they have undertaken or would undertake on the Court to help the less fortunate.

But it got worse. He admitted part of the reason for applying was an “ego thing” and proceeded to list his many accomplishments in a monologue that used well over half of his interview time. He told the commission he would not need to “learn as much as some” because of his diverse practice background. In stark contrast to the modesty of applicants throughout the day, at one point Mr. Tribbett literally patted himself on the back when telling the commission how he had negotiated a land sale for five times what the sellers had thought it was worth. In response to Mr. McCashland’s question about collegiality, Mr. Tribbett responded that he gets along with the people he deals with “most of the time.”

Although Mr. Tribbett worked as a clerk for the court (in the administrator’s office) in the 1970s and appears to have a varied and distinguished record of practice, his demeanor during the interview would seem nearly fatal to any chance of appointment to a Court that values collegiality and modesty.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 6, 2010 07:45 PM
Posted to Vacancy on Supreme Ct