NRO has the HEM Questionnaire with answers[PDF] available for your reading pleasure.
A perusal of the answers results in the following issues of note:
- The bulk of her publication record consists, by far, of various short columns written during her tenure as President of the Texas ABA and the Dallas ABA.
- She has been involved in three cases that were brought to the Supreme Court of the United States–all three of which were denied cert.
- In answering questions on judicial philosophy she draws heavily on her clerking experience from 1970-72. That was a while ago.
Of course, the fact that she only spent 3-1/2 pages answering the substantive questions is, to put it mildly, less than impressive. Indeed, her answers amount to a regurgitation of the first few days of an undergraduate ConLaw course.
Joyner also notes other Blogospheric reactions to this issue.
For comparative purposes, Robert’s questionnaire can be found here.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (7)|
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
October 20th, 2024 at 12:46 pm
Steven,
This questionnaire goes to prove my point, mostly. The last question (#28 on judicial activism), while not strictly a legal writing by any fair definition of the phrase, does at least have some substance about it that would shed an emanation from a penumbra of light on her judicial philosophy. Other than that, though, this questionnaire is pretty much useless — and I mean the questions are pretty much useless, not just her answers.
–S
October 20th, 2024 at 1:11 pm
I think we are in basic agreeemtna nd talking past one another.
My point, and think Steve’s, is that the pathetic truth is that because of her lack of a record, this otherwise unimportant document takes on remarkable significance.
It shouldn’t be that way, yet it is because of her lack of qualifications.
I tihnk the usage of the term “legal writing” clouded your perception of my post and Bainbridge’s.
October 20th, 2024 at 1:43 pm
Did you mean to provide a link to the Joyner post?
October 20th, 2024 at 1:45 pm
I thought I had.
Will fix.
October 20th, 2024 at 2:35 pm
You’re right — we’re saying the same thing. And my main point (perhaps my only point) with my first comment was precisely that the term “legal writing” was inappropriate for this document.
It is, sadly, all we’ve got (pretty much).
October 20th, 2024 at 8:02 pm
As I’ve mentioned before, I think Wahl makes a personal groomer that can get rid of those emanating penumbras.
October 20th, 2024 at 8:08 pm
[...] s
Posted by: John Hay @ 8:08 pm Filed under: Law, Pros and Cons
After reading Poliblog’s excellent post containing links to both Mier’s Senate questionnaire and Robert’s [...]