Core Flashcards
Why do you want to be a judge?
Public service is important in my life and to my family. My mother worked in public education and my wife works for a public hospital, so I’ve seen up close the impact that public service can have on the community. No matter what job you do, when you’re in public service, you’re serving the American people. It’s noble work and necessary work, and I want to answer the call to service.
There are no active Article III judges in Washington that look like me. I look to history to Judges Burgess and Tanner, and more recently, Richard Jones. And I think about the way they inspired me. I hope that if confirmed, I can serve as an example of the American dream confirmed for the next generation of lawyers.
What is your judicial philosophy?
Above all else, judges should have an unwavering commitment to equal justice under the law. That’s really the extent of my judicial philosophy. I think this is best achieved when judges take a methodical approach to a case. To me that method, especially for trial judges, includes:
- knowing the record inside and out,
- rigorous analysis of the law and the parties’ briefs,
- diligently researching case law on the issues,
- conferring with my colleagues on the bench and clerks, and
- addressing only the narrow issues before the court,
- explaining the court’s reasoning in a written order as clearly and understandable as possible.
That’s the philosophy or approach I would apply to cases as a District Judge, if confirmed.
What sources would you consult on a case that involved interpreting a federal statute?
I would start first with the applicable Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. If there was no precedent, I would look to the text of the statute as guided by the canon’s of construction. If the meaning of the statute is clear on its face, my process would stop.
If there’s any ambiguity, however, I would look to precent involving analogous statutes, perhaps case law outside the Ninth Circuit for persuasive authority. And lastly, the legislative history of the statute to see if there’s a clear pronounce meant of congresses intent.
What sources would you consult on a case that involved interpreting a Constitutional provision?
I would start first with the applicable Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting the provision.
In the unusual event of absolutely no precedent, I would look to the text of the Constitution and interpret it consistent with the methods described by controlling courts in the most analogous situation.
For example, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court looked to the original public meaning of the Second Amendment. I would also look to other circuits for analogous cases and persuasive authority.
What role does legislative history play when interpreting ambiguous statutory terms? Is all legislative history created equally?
There are numerous instances where the Supreme Court has considered legislative history in interpreting ambiguous text. But some forms of legislative history are more persuasive than others. For example, a statement of purpose in a bill will be more persuasive than statements made during a floor debate.
What is federalism?
Federalism describes a system of government where some powers belong to the national government, and some powers belong to the state government.
What are the limits of the presidents ability to issue executive orders?
The Supreme Court has held that the President’s ability to issue executive orders “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Whether the president has acted within this authority would need to be analysis under applicable precedent. If confirmed, and presented with this issue, I would diligently research all controlling authority and apply it to the facts of the case.
What is “rational basis” review?
It’s a test courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.
To pass the rational basis review:
- the statute or ordinance must further a legitimate state interest,
- and there must be a rational connection between the statute’s/ordinance’s means and goals.
The test is used when no fundamental rights are at stake and no suspect classes implicated.
What is intermediate scrutiny?
It’s a test courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.
To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must:
- further an important government interest,
- and there must be a substantially relationship between the means and goal of the statute.
Intermediate scrutiny is when the challenged law negatively affects certain protected classes, and arises in Equal Protection claims.
What is strict scrutiny?
It’s a test courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.
To pass strict scrutiny, the challenged law must:
- further a “compelling governmental interest,” and
- must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.
Strict scrutiny applies where the law in question burdens suspect classes (race, religion, alienage, national origin) or fundamental rights.
What is justiciability?
Justiciability refers to a matter which is capable of being decided by a court. Justiciable means that a case is suitable for courts to hear and decide on the merits.
Typically to be justiciable,
- the court must not be offering an advisory opinion,
- the plaintiff must have standing, and
- the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.
Don’t guess response
I don’t know _______, so I hesitate to venture a guess. As a judge, if confirmed, I would rule from a place of knowledge, not conjecture.
What does “originalism” mean and what role would it play in your decisions?
Broadly speaking, “originalism” is a judicial concept that holds that the Constitution or a statute is to be understood as it was at the time it was ratified.
Originalism has been recognized by the Supreme Court, and the Court has described the instances in which it applies. As the Court recently held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, analyzing the 2nd Amendment is one area in which the Supreme Court has found that originalism applies.
In those areas that the Circuit or the Supreme Court has held that originalism applies, I would be bound to apply originalism as a District Judge, if confirmed.
Why does diversity on the bench matter?
Diversity on the bench serves at least two really important purposes. First, it enhances confidence in the judicial system and the appearance of fairness to all who come into a court room. Second, it affirms the American dream that anyone who works hard can achieve their dreams, even becoming a federal judge. That’s a powerful message that I think a diverse bench sends.
Resume Answer
My experience as an attorney is varied. I’ve been a commercial litigator defending corporations, I’ve been a government trial attorney defending and enforcing laws on behalf of the country, and I’ve represented everyday people. Along the way, I have confronted new areas of law numerous times. Through research and hard work, I was always able to get up to speed.
I haven’t been faced with ____ yet, but if confirmed, I expect diligent research and hard work will carry the day.
I would also rely upon the briefing and argument of the parties, my colleagues on the bench, my law clerks, and judicial education opportunities, like the ones offered at the Federal Judicial Center.
