Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Vacancy On Supreme Court 2017 - Day 2: Report On Interview #17, Ms. Elizabeth C. Green
This is Prof. Joel Schumm's report on the 17th interview of Day 2
In response to a question about her reasons for applying, Ms. Green noted the “unique time” in which we live and the opportunity to help lead the judiciary for decades to come. She believed one of the biggest challenges would be to learn other areas of law, like criminal law, although she has a broad range of experience from her practice thus far.
In response to a question about areas for improvement, Ms. Green discussed efiling, noting some hiccups that could be improved. She also discussed the importance of access for unrepresented litigants.
In response to a question about what has changed in the past year and her preparation, Ms. Green discussed her increased participation, in such things as “We the People” and the upcoming state bar moot court competition, as well as reading more cases and law review articles.
In response to a question about recent cases that have caught her eye, Ms. Green discussed two summary judgment cases as well as the Myers asbestos case, including a discussion of the dissenting opinions as well.
In response to a question about recusal if cases from her firm made it to the Court, Ms. Green said she would need to review the rules and surely any case in which she had been involved would require her recusal.
In response to a question about administrative work, Ms. Green noted she had read recent annual reports and State of the Judiciary speeches, she said she was particularly interested in education, working with younger attorneys, and the unauthorized practice of law.
In response to a question about her young age, Ms. Green said she has packed a lot into her years of practice and “did not feel young” as she approaches 40. She noted the job is not one she would perform alone, and the importance of bringing someone to the bench who will still be there in ten or twenty years.
In response to a question about influences on her ethics, Ms. Green discussed the influence of her parents. She said she has a high ethical code for herself, which she follows every day at work and outside work.
In response to a question about dissenting opinions, Ms. Green said she would dissent if she thought the majority was wrong after carefully listening to all the views of the other justices. The audience would be the majority, which may change its opinion as a result. Mr. Feighner followed up about the dissenting opinions in the Myers case, and Ms. Green noted it spoke to both the majority and the public.
In response to a question about the justice she admired most, Ms. Green pointed to Chief Justice Roberts, who keeps a cool and calm demeanor and builds a consensus on the Court.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 22, 2017 11:47 AM
Posted to Vacancy on Supreme Court - 2017