Sullivan asks judge applicants to name their favorite judge

In Sen. Dan Sullivan’s quest to create a federal judge to his liking, his questionnaire of leading questions stops just short of asking applicants, “Who’s your favorite Alaska senator?” and “What are the three things you like best about him?”

It’s the Sullivan Judicial Council because Sen. Lisa Murkowski has already completed the traditional process of vetting “very qualified candidates” to fill a position that has been vacant for almost two years.

“My process is now complete,” Murkowski wrote in September about names to forward to the White House. “Alaskans have waited long enough for the district court to operate at full capacity, and I look forward to the vacancy being filled without further delay.”

But Sullivan doesn’t like the applicants and wants a delay, so he started all over with his personal Sullivan Judicial Council and his own questions.

“Do you have a judge or justice (whether still alive or not) whom you most admire, and why?” Sullivan asks those who seek his stamp of approval.

That’s an easy one.

The ideal future judge can quote the words of Sen. Dan Sullivan: "As a young first-year law student at Georgetown, I had the great honor of meeting with Justice Scalia and discussing constitutional law. It was an encounter with a great American that is etched in my memory forever.”

Sullivan also asks applicants to name their favorite Alaska federal district judge.

Other questions ask applicants to describe cases etched in their memories that “could in good faith be considered controversial” and to name the “most significant” legal matters of their careers. Every case can in good faith be considered controversial and every case is the most significant to the client in court.

Here is where the future Federalist Society champion can do no better than repeat the immortal words of Sarah Palin naming the newspapers and magazines she read: "All of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.”

While Sullivan doesn’t ask wannabe jurists to name the most important amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which would have to be the Second Amendment—he comes close.

“What do you believe is the most important or consequential U.S. Supreme Court decision and why?” Sullivan asks.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas would be a logical choice in some circles, but Sullivan would be pleased to see support for Dobbs v. Jackson, the case he endorsed in the campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A solid alternative would be to praise the Supreme Court ruling in favor of John Sturgeon, the Alaskan who was Sullivan’s “Alaskan of the Week” on April 5, 2019.

“This is a monumentally important decision for my state,” Sullivan said. The court ruled that Sturgeon could use his hovercraft on the Nation River, which runs through the Yukon-Charley National Preserve, a landmark case about land access.

“Literally, they are going to make a movie out of this someday,” Sullivan said to the TV camera and the empty Senate chamber.

The movie would have to mention the attorneys who bolstered Sturgeon’s case.

“He does acknowledge he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did without the help of some excellent attorneys, all of whom I know and have had the opportunity in my life to work with and become friends with: Matt Findley, Ruth Botstein, and Jon Katchen, who wrote an amicus brief in both hearings, including one for the congressional delegation that the U.S. Supreme Court used a lot,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan neglected to mention Sturgeon attorney Doug Pope.

Two of the three attorneys Sullivan did mention—Findley and Katchen—are among the nine members Sullivan selected to serve on the Sullivan Judicial Council to weed through the applications.

Katchen worked for Sullivan in state government and Sullivan unsuccessfully campaigned to have Katchen confirmed as a federal district judge in 2018. The opposition to Katchen took the form of not holding a hearing and he withdrew his name.

Sullivan calls his council a “broad, diverse cross-section of Alaska professionals.” It’s a hand-picked group that features a friendly Sullivan majority. Not all of them agree with Sullivan’s politics, but he has enough support to get what he wants.

The group, led by former Gov. Sean Parnell, will present him with some judicial candidates that Sullivan will like. That Murkowski opposes this entire process will doom it, unless she surrenders to Sullivan. I expect Murkowski will fight to defend the traditional process that Sullivan has unilaterally abandoned, but we’ll see.

Last spring there was a statewide poll of the members of the Alaska Bar Association, followed by interviews Murkowski conducted with many of the candidates. She wants to send names to the White House for an appointment, but Sullivan is relying on the antiquated rules of the Senate to obstruct her.

The Senate, by tradition that should have been abandoned long ago, allows a single home-state senator to block federal judicial nominations.

Two of the nine members of Sullivan’s Council—Findley and Christine Pate—are married to state judges, one on the Court of Appeals and one on the Supreme Court. That does not disqualify Findley and Pate, but it puts them in an awkward political position that limits their ability to speak freely. Pate is also a former Sullivan Alaskan of the Week.

Another member of the Sullivan Judicial Council, Texas lawyer Stephen Cox, has barely had any connection to Alaska, certainly not enough to be an Alaskan of the Week. He should have no role in giving advice on Alaska judges. Cox is not listed as a member of the Alaska Bar Association.

The others are the panel are Jessica Graham, who has said of Sullivan, “No one can accuse him of being wishy-washy or saying different things to different audiences”; Jo Kuchle, a Fairbanks lawyer and wife of former Sen. Gene Therriault; former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman; and Kim Reitmeier, president of the ANCSA Regional Association.

These nine members of Sullivan’s Council, Sullivan and his staff will read the questionnaires, all the answers to which are to be confidential, the questionnaire says.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.