Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Vacancy On Supreme Court 2017 - Round 2: Report On Interview #6, Ms. Elizabeth C. Green
This is Prof. Joel Schumm's report on the 6th interview of Round 2 (and today's final interview)
In response to an opening question from Chief Justice Rush about she would deal with an issue of a litigant not being provided an interpreter, Ms. Green said she would begin with the Indiana Constitution and the importance of the open access. When asked about the “biggest learning curve,” Ms. Green said she has not dealt with criminal law or constitutional law since law school. She has “learned how to learn” throughout life and would continue to do so.
In response to a question from Mr. Berger about her opinion on the difference between the federal and Indiana summary judgment rule, Ms. Green said access to the Courts is essential, citing that Jarboe and Hughley guarantee the right to court when there is any doubt, which she believes “works just fine.”
In response to a question about replacing Justice Rucker, reading a description of him, Ms. Green said her letters of recommendation give insight into her as a person and attorney. She can be cognizant and aware of a person’s situation even if she has not been there herself. She cited examples of representing “the little guy” and discussed the importance of teaching empathy to her children.
In response to a question about supporting a legal position contrary to her beliefs, Ms. Green said she may sometimes think she does not have a winning case or may not agree with their course of conduct but does the best she can with the facts and law.
In response to a question about obstacles to justice, Ms. Green discussed the challenges of and for pro se litigants, noting the importance of a statewide assessment for ways to address it.
In response to Mr. Feighner’s question about the variety of legal issues the Court decided last year and ways she would contribute, Ms. Green said she would bring her experience and knowledge, remarking specifically on commercial cases. In response to a follow-up question about the differences between transactional and ligation practice, Ms. Green said a lot of her time is spent advising clients.
In response to a question from Mr. Berger about how she would weigh the interests of business or individuals under Article 1, Section 23, Ms. Green said she took Indiana constitutional law in law school with Justice Dickson and learned about Collins v. Day. She believes commercial courts help speed up litigation for businesses, but she does not believe businesses should be treated differently.
When asked by Chief Justice Rush when the standard of review should trump deciding cases on their merits, Ms. Green mentioned the importance of deferring to jury verdicts
In response to a question about opinions of Justice Rucker that have spoken to her, Ms. Green discussed the recent mortgage foreclosure case involving a veteran. Giving voice to the voiceless may not carry the day, but it is much easier to live with the decision if people know they were heard.
In response to a question about her preparation for the interview, Ms. Green said she had talked to a lot of different people and had read and reflected on cases and law review articles.
In response to a question about the most radical action she has taken, Ms. Green discussed studying abroad, which opened the door to a different style of teaching and learning.
In response to a question about what she would like the JNC to know that is not in her application, Ms. Green said her application discusses her involvement with the IndyBar Professionalism Committee. She noted how much the “five C’s” apply to her application for this position: commitment (to the law, justice, and the job), character (integrity, impartiality, humility), competency (wide range of experience), courtesy (the importance of how others are treated), and community involvement.
In response to a follow-up from Mr. Berger about Justice Scalia’s dissents, Ms. Green said a message could be lost in how it was presented, and she would not take the approach of Justice Scalia.
In response to a question about expanding the size of the Indiana Supreme Court, Ms. Green said she does not have a strong opinion either way. Increasing the size would bring more voices, which usually leads to a better result.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 18, 2017 01:19 PM
Posted to Vacancy on Supreme Court - 2017