Kohl: Let’s put New Haven case in perspective. Isn’t it true that it was a close case and that reasonable minds could see it one way or the other?

SS: Panel relied on circuit precedent.

HK: You’ve been criticized for speeches. But you have low reversal rate. [Uses disputable stats]

SS: My record shows that I follow the law. Thousands of cases.

HK: What do you think of umpire analogy?

SS: Analogies are imperfect, but judge’s duty is to be neutral and to apply the law.

HK: Which sitting justice do you most identify with, and with which will you most agree?

SS: Each justice brings integrity and respect for law. I don’t want to go further. I’m a judge who believes that the facts drive the law’s application. A justice from the past whom I admire is Cardozo. Well known for respect for precedent and deference to legislative branch. [??]

HK: Let me ask about affirmative action. Consideration of ethnicity or gender shouldn’t trump merit or turn into quotas. What do you think of affirmative action? Do you think it’s more justified in education than employment? Do you agree with O’Connor that it will be unnecessary in 25 years?

SS: Use of affirmative action is first a legislative decision. Constitution promotes and requires equal protection. Sometimes requires consideration of race. [Seems to go beyond remedial context.] It’s my hope that race won’t be needed to be considered in 25 years. But there are situations in which there are compelling state interests. University admissions is one that’s been recognized. Narrowly tailored solution. Discusses two Michigan cases. Not clear how principles apply in other contexts.

HK: Should Court have even gotten involved in Bush v. Gore?

SS: My reaction as sitting judge is not to criticize or challenge. Some good came from discussion of case. Electoral changes. All branches become involved in conversation about how to change things.

HK: Kelo takings case in 2005 alarmed me. What’s your opinion of ruling? What’s an appropriate “public use”?

SS: Kelo is now a precedent of the Court. I must follow it as a circuit judge. As justice, I’d give it the deference that theory of stare decisis would suggest. [Meaning what??] I understand the concerns over property rights, but the question was a complicated one about what constitutes public use.

HK: I asked you your opinion of Kelo.

SS: I don’t prejudge issues. I come to every case with an open mind.

HK: Do you agree with Griswold (right of privacy)?

SS: That’s precedent. There is a right of privacy. The Court has found it in various places: 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment liberty interest.

HK: Is Roe settled law?

SS: Casey reaffirmed core holding of Roe. That is Court’s settled precedent. [Maybe not exact phrasing.]

HK: What do you think of cameras in the courtroom?

SS: I’ve had positive experiences with cameras. But collegiality requires listening to colleagues.

HK: Would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices?

SS: All questions of policy are within the providence [sic] of Congress first, but would have to be considered within light of Constitution. Framers had reasons for life tenure.

HK: Someone said that you have pro-business views on antitrust law. Comments? Also, what do you think of Leegin decision overturning precedent on resale price maintenance?

SS: Can’t speak to whether Leegin was right or wrong. Different views of stare decisis. I’ve applied the law on antitrust.