Thread by @acslaw

From our first issue brief by Kristina Silja Bennard back in 2005 (!) on the confirmation hearings of #RBG and answering questions while maintaining judicial impartiality (1/21)

Read the entire ACS issue brief here acslaw.org/wp-content/upl… (2/21)

Bennard: The hearings for #RBG in 1993 provide a good example of how a nominee balances her obligation of impartiality with the need to shed light on her fundamental views (3/21)

While the senators questioning her asked penetrating questions on issue both fact-based & theoretical, #RBG answered substantively and with specificity (4/21)

She provided frank answers to questions relating to a broad range or current & controversial legal issues without sacrificing her impartiality or independence (5/21)

These answers provided significant insight into her fundamental constitutional values (6/21)

On due process: “The Government must have a good reason, if it is going to intrude on one’s privacy or autonomy… (7/21)

…So if I am going to accord that respect on my own, the Government appropriately requires me to recognize that I live in a community with others and can’t push my own decision-making to the point where it would intrude on the autonomy of others.” (8/21)

While judges are expected to remain impartial, that does not mean they do not have personal reactions & views on debated issues (9/21)

On affirmative action & women’s rights: “These are very difficult cases and each one has to be studied in its own particular context. But in that case, I related back to my own experience… (10/21)

… Whenever a subjective test is involved, there is that concern. If you are a member of the group that has up until now been left out, you wonder whether the person conducting the interview finds you unfamiliar, finds himself slightly uncomfortable… (11/21)

… thinking about you being part of a workplace that up until then has been, say, all-white or all-male.” (12/21)

#RBG also did not shy away from expressing views that gave insight into how she would approach questions of criminal law (13/21)

On a Miranda case: “In a situation like this, where the object is to ensure that a defendant knows about the right to counsel, knows that the defendant is not obliged to incriminate herself or himself… (14/21)

… these are salutary rules that have safeguarded the constitutional right. Frankly, from my point of view, it makes the system run better because… it avoids controversies… (15/21)

It is an assurance that the law is going to be administered even-handedly” (16/21)

While no one expects a nominee to have extensive knowledge in all areas of the law, #RBG did not use lack of expertise as an excuse for avoiding questions in those areas (17/21)

On Indian Law: “I take whatever view Congress has instructed… I would be bound to apply whatever policy Congress has set in this very difficult area.” (18/21)

Bennard’s excellent synopsis of #RBG ‘s confirmation hearings put into stark contrast the way questions should be answered in comparison to the non-answers Amy Coney Barret gave (19/21)

Read more on Barrett’s non-answers from ACS member @elliotcwilliams cnn.com/2020/10/14/opi… (20/21)

And read Bennard’s entire ACS issue brief here: acslaw.org/wp-content/upl… (21/21)