Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Vacancy On Supreme Court 2017 - Day 1: Report On Interview #12, Mr. Lyle R. Hardman
This is Prof. Joel Schumm's report on the 12th, and final, interview of Day 1
In response to a question about meeting unmet needs of civil litigants, Mr. Hardman emphasized the importance of lawyers doing pro bono work. He is on a panel to provide appellate pro bono representation, but most cases do not sall within his area of expertise.
In response to the question about what he would ask the founding fathers, Mr. Hardman would ask what their intention was in drafting such a general document.
In response to a question from Mr. Young about a recent decision the Supreme Court did especially well, Mr. Hardman first mentioned a 2009 opinion, Williams v. Tharp. He then mentioned the recent Patchett v. Lee opinion, noting that some of the JNC members might disagree with him.
In response to a question about the difference in the federal and Indiana summary judgment standards, Mr. Hardman said he recognizes the distinction and had no problem following Indiana’s standard.
In response to a question by Mr. Yakym about a recent case that has shaped his judicial philosophy, Mr. Hardman instead pointed to the Scalia/Garner book about interpreting legal texts. He expressed concern with judges substituting their views for the legislature.
When asked about an area of Indiana law that could be improved, Mr. Hardman noted funding problems. He represents counties and county jails but many inmates are not getting adequate mental health treatment before and during their incarceration.
When asked about filling Justice Rucker’s shoes, Mr. Hardman said he did not know he could fill his shoes but would bring collegiality (he served on both governing committees of his firm) and enjoys the more complex/weird cases.
When asked what someone might say negatively about him, Mr. Hardman said his wife might say he works too much.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 21, 2017 03:50 PM
Posted to Vacancy on Supreme Court - 2017