PORT ANGELES — When did you know you wanted to be a Supreme Court justice?
That was the kind of question asked over lunch as jurists from the state’s highest court shared lunchtime conversation with Peninsula College students Monday.
One of the justices was familiar: Susan J. Owens, the former Forks District Court judge first elected to the Supreme Court in 2000.
“I really don’t remember it at all,” she chatted while seated at a dining table at the Pirate Union Building.
“But when I was a college freshman, I told my roommate that one day I wanted to be a Supreme Court justice.
“She said that she remembered all those years because I seemed so confident and self-assured when she wasn’t sure what she wanted to do.
“I don’t remember saying that, but I guess that little thought must have been with me all those years — because here I am.
“She told me about that conversation when I got elected.”
Owens attended Duke University for undergraduate school and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for her law degree.
“I highly recommend state schools, especially for those going into law school because it is so expensive these days,” she said.
Eight of the nine Supreme Court justices — Charles W. Johnson had an appointment elsewhere, but will be at the college today — visited with students, then lectured and fielded questions Monday afternoon in a classroom setting.
But lunch begged informality.
Weirdest cases
Peninsula College student Stephanie Alberti quizzed Owens about weirdest cases.
“Oh my, I don’t think I can pick just one,” Owens replied.
“We get all sorts of weird ones.”
She went on to say that visiting colleges was one of the best parts of the year.
“We get some of the best, most fun questions at community colleges,” Owens said.
“I also love doing question and answer sessions, which we never do when we are at our chambers in Olympia.”
Later Monday, Owens joined Tom Chambers and James Johnson for a forum discussing the court’s role with controversial issues, which was attended by about 100 people, mostly students and faculty.
Some questions the justices commented little on, saying the cases were not within their jurisdiction.
For example, student Winston Pedy asked why convicted pedophiles could be restricted for travel to other countries where they might go to abuse children, but businesses who used foreign sweat shops were allowed to keep business permits.
“Trade between the states, as well as international trade and business, is regulated by the federal government,” James Johnson said.
“So Congress could make a law doing that but our state Legislature, and certainly our court, could not regulate that.
“But you could start a petition for some sort of law — I think it is a good idea and, hey, I’d even sign something like that.”
Pedy said that he appreciated the answer.
“It was really interesting to hear what level that sort of thing falls under,” he said.
“And I was also interested to hear their opinions on the issue.
“I thought it is a very interesting discussion today.”
Assisted suicide
Another student asked what the three would do in court about assisted suicide.
Chambers replied that it would depend on the case.
“It is difficult to answer that in the abstract, because typically for a case we are looking at a specific case that is being tried and a specific statute and we don’t go outside the arguments,” he said.
“We also can’t really talk in the abstract about whether we favor or don’t favor assisted suicide because nothing personal enters our decisions.
“For example, I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I have concluded that it is constitutional and it gives me very little pleasure that on numerous occasions I’ve voted to enforce the death penalty.
“If I were king there wouldn’t be death penalty, but I am not king and policy is not my job.”
Ronnie Tisdale, a Peninsula College student, said she had heard about the session in her English class and had hoped to hear some more about the debate about women’s rights as well as stem-cell research.
Neither issue was addressed by the justices because both fall into federal court jurisdiction.
“All of the topics are really interesting to hear about,” she said.
The three jurists also discussed at length Referendum 71, a referendum on the Nov. 3 ballot asking voters to endorse or reject a domestic-partner law passed by the Legislature earlier this year.
Release of names
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the release of the names of the people who signed petitions to place the referendum on the ballot.
“It obviously didn’t happen that way, but this signature issue very easily could have ended up in our court,” Owens said.
None of the three said how he or she would rule, but said it was a delicate balance.
“It is really interesting, actually,” Chambers said.
“Washington has one of the strongest public disclosure laws in the nation — and that came about by an initiative from the people, because no government official would have ever gotten that through as a law.
“On the other hand, people have the right to a secret ballot.
“Where is the balance between being able to keep your vote secret and disclosing the right amount of information to the public?”
Owens said that the fact that same-sex partners was a hot-button issue complicated decisions further.
In Andersen v. King County, the court issued six or seven opinions in a 5-4 opinion which determined that the Legislature could make laws permitting or not permitting same-sex marriage, Owens said.
“It is a very complex issue and we couldn’t all agree on a legal analysis,” she said.
Other forums
At other forums, Justices Barbara A. Madsen and Debra L. Stephens discussed diversity and the law, and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices Richard B. Sanders and Mary E. Fairhurst discussed journalism, history and the law.
__________
Reporter Paige Dickerson can be reached at 360-417-3535 or at paige.dickerson@peninsuladailynews.com.
