Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Vacancy On Supreme Court 2017 - Day 1: Report On Interview #10, Mr. William N. Riley
This is Prof. Joel Schumm's report on the 10th interview of Day 1
In response to a question about his background that would lead citizens to believe he would be a good and fair justice, Mr. Riley emphasized his ability to listen. He would work with other justices to craft opinions and not be driven by ego.
In response to question about judicial philosophy, Mr. Riley said judges must rely on the text of the Constitution or statute.
In response to a question about his involvement in the Federalist Society, Mr. Riley said he first became involved as a law student. The emphasis then was the “sovereignty of the people,” and justices should apply laws as enacted by the people. On the local level, he believes most members feel the same way.
In response to a question about a recent opinion outside of his area of practice, he mentioned an opinion by Justice Scalia involving marriage of a non-citizen, which he believed posed an interesting question.
In response to a question about replacing Justice Rucker, Mr. Riley noted that Justice Rucker understands the “common man” and he would seek to emulate protecting their rights.
In response to a question about his lack of experience in criminal cases, Mr. Riley said he was not familiar with the power to revise sentences under Rule 7(B). Mr. Riley said he met with Judge Nation on a number of occasions and observed cases of his to familiarize him with criminal law and procedures.
In response to Mr. Berger’s question, Mr. Riley said he would seek to emulate Judge John Daniel Tinder. One of his first trials was before Judge Tinder, and Mr. Riley was impressed with his humanity and kindness, which put lawyers at ease.
When asked about constitutional rights of non-citizens, Mr. Riley said our rights are given to us by enabling documents. Mr. Yakym followed up for a specific answer, and Mr. Riley said if he were in DC today, referring to the Gorsuch hearing, he would not be able to answer that question because it could come before him as a justice. He concluded he believed the constitution was pretty clear about who is a citizen.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 21, 2017 03:25 PM
Posted to Vacancy on Supreme Court - 2017