Introduction

As the United States Senate undertakes its constitutional duty to evaluate and then confirm, or reject, the nominees identified by the President, the Standing Committee on Judicial Ratings (“the Committee”) offers the following report to aid the Senate in that process. The purpose of this report is to consider the merits of the nominees before the Senate without bias. Because the Supreme Court is the highest court in our land, it of the utmost importance that nominees are considered on their merits first and foremost.

Methodology

Our interviewers spoke with approximately one dozen individuals who have worked with the nominees. The interviewees included frequent litigators, co-partisans, and members of the judiciary. The interviewees were drawn from across the political spectrum; they included Democrats, Socialists, and Republicans. All interviews included questions in four categories: overall qualifications and experience, judicial temperament, and prejudices and biases. The interviews also included follow-up questions based upon answers provided by the interviewee and questions seeking additional information relating to answers provided by other interviewees.

Because the interviews were conducted on an anonymous and confidential basis to ensure that interviewees felt comfortable providing candid responses, we will not divulge the names of the interviewees or information from the interviews that could lead to an interviewee being identified.

Finally, in addition to the interviews, the Committee examined each nominee’s publicly-accessible writings, including confirmation hearings for prior posts and court filings.

Interview Summary

The Committee provides the below summary of the results of the Committee’s interviews. It is not comprehensive; rather, the Committee has sought to identify general trends, whether positive or negative. For the purposes of this section, the Committee neither adopts nor rejects the sentiments expressed in the statements by the interviewees. Instead, the Committee provides the following summary in the interest of transparency, to the extent the process of anonymous interviews can be so.

Furthermore, the Committee notes its concern that, though not discussed below, a common theme during the interview process was that one or the other nominee, or both, was nominated solely because that nominee is “a Republican.” This objection was voiced by approximately half of all interviewees, regardless of political party affiliation. It is the opinion of the Committee, however, that the qualifications of the nominees must be judged on their own merits, not the political context of their nomination.

Finally, the Committee is pleased to report that no interviewee expressed concern that either nominee held nay biases or prejudices that might interfere with his ability to serve competently and neutrally as a justice. Accordingly, the Committee provides no summary or further analysis on that subject in this report.

/u/Comped

All interviewees agreed that Comped has had extensive experience in litigation. According to one person, “[h]e’s already been a judge a few times” and his state cases are “quite numerous.” Another said that “purely on paper, Comped is extremely qualified . . . considering he was the Attorney General . . . along with his other work elsewhere.” Several identified the fact that Comped has served on two different state courts in explaining his qualification for the office.

However, many interviewees cited concerns over Comped’s perceived “incompetence.” According to one interviewee, “[h]e has no grasp on the Constitution beyond the most literal of applications.” Comped is “[u]nder-qualified and incompetent,” said someone else. “He even forgets constitutional basics like severability and constitutional avoidance.” Another stated: “Statistically, Comped should have been able to make a correct statement of law by now, but he somehow hasn’t.” A handful interviewees, however, stated that they did not agree with the claims of “incompetence,” instead praising his litigation skills.

Some in legal community had concerns beyond grasp of legal concepts. One interviewee identified that Comped is “very desperate” for a position on the Supreme Court and “has made that clear to everyone he has met.” In light of that, the interviewee expressed worries over Comped “mental capacity.” Another described Comped’s temperament as “too persistent”–“the type to get angry if he doesn’t get what he wants.”

For others, Comped’s performance of his duties was a red flag. One interviewee stated that Comped’s “decision making during times of crisis has been called into question on multiple occasions.” Another noted that “[h]is application of the law as attorney general was sketchy. His methods of catching criminals was underhanded and shady.” For example, the interviewee continued, “I have heard [of] instances of him sneaking Miranda Rights into a sentence to argue that he had administered them.” Interviewees also took issue with the College Board investigation, which one described as “pitifully insufficient.”

/u/IAmATinman (Flash)

There was a clear consensus among the interviewees that Flash is a bright legal thinker. One interviewee explained, “He clearly knows law well. He’s probably, objectively speaking, the second most qualified person for the position in terms of being legal mind.” Others expressed similar opinions: “Qualified in every way. Knows his way around the court system, bar qualified, attorney general, experience on the state level”; “[I]t’s clear he knows how to apply the law, and he seems to be quite knowledgeable”; “Exceedingly sharp legal mind”.

The most common concerns voiced about Flash were his lack of experience and delays in producing work-product. One interviewee noted that “he’s never authored [a judicial] opinion.” Another expressed concern “I can’t find a single opinion with [Flash’s] name on it” and that Flash had not practiced substantively before the Supreme Court despite his term as U.S. Attorney General. That interviewee went on to explain that “[w]e’ve had judges that did nothing before they came on the bench, and they mostly fell off the bench as quickly as they could.”

One interviewee noted the disconnect between President Gunnz’s description of Flash’s background in the nomination announcement and reality: “Gunnz clearly stated that [Flash] has written opinions that all Americans can agree with” but Flash “has never authored an opinion.” “It feels like Gunnz doesn’t know his own nominee.”

Another also worried that while Flash will not “be a boon to SCOTUS” due to his failure to campaign in the most recent elections and delays in his opinion-writing for the Atlantic Commonwealth Supreme Court. The interviewee went on: “I’m afraid that replacing the acting Chief Justice, Restrepo, with someone who is relatively slow will impair the Court.”

Those concerned about Flash’s qualifications were unconvinced by his work as Supreme Court Clerk. “[E]xactly what he does in the role is quite opaque,” said one. Another interviewee observed that Flash’s work as a clerk “is an interesting plus, but there’s little information on how much he has actually done” in that position.

Not all thought Flash’s sluggishness or lack of experience was disqualifying. According to one person, “[h]is lack of judicial opinion writing would be concerning for most other candidates” but given that he is “one of the most capable attorneys” there is enough evidence “to prove that he knows what he’s doing.” Another felt Flash was being unfairly singled out:

I think the timely operation of the courts is a major issue across all levels of the sim, and particularly that at the Supreme Court level. If sluggish publication was a disqualifying factor, I think there would be very few options of any quality That said, I think publication schedules are generally just as much an institutional issue as they are a personal one.



A handful of interviewees wholly disputed the claim that Flash “lacked experience.” Primarily, they pointed to his experience as U.S. Attorney General, his service on the Atlantic Commonwealth Supreme Court, and work as a Supreme Court Clerk. Despite the lack of authored judicial opinions, one interviewee said, Flash “has been a highly active member of the Atlantic Supreme Court, participating in the cases via questioning and personal debate between the justices” regardless of whether he ultimately authored the decision.

Analysis

The Committee could provide three ratings: “well qualified,” “qualified,” and “not qualified.” Its ratings for the two present nominees are as follows:

/u/IAmATinman (Flash): Qualified.

/u/Comped: Not qualified.

The Committee’s reasoning may be found below.

/u/IAmATinman (Flash)

The Committee is prepared to certify Flash as “qualified” to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. While the concerns over Flash’s dearth of public-facing work-product are well-taken, he has shown himself an adept legal mind with a deep understanding of legal issues. The high esteem in which Flash is held by the legal community likewise weighs in favor of a “qualified rating.” (See the results of the interviews, above).

Furthermore, the nominee, as many interviewees have noted, is not without experience. He has served as a state attorney general, a United States Attorney General, and as Chief Justice of the Atlantic Supreme Court. In his capacity as U.S. Attorney General, he authored approximately six memoranda relating to legal matters. For example, his Proposed Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances was a multi-page document which included a lengthy legal analysis citing both to statutory and regulatory authority. Likewise, as Attorney General the nominee propounded a thirty-page memorandum relating to distribution of funds from his office to be used to combat the opioid crisis. Finally, as some interviewees pointed out, the nominee did participate in the hearings before his court during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Atlantic Commonwealth Supreme Court.

In addition, the Committee notes Flash’s excellent performance during his hearing for confirmation as Attorney General of the United States. There, he provided an extensive opening statement in which he set forth his priorities and qualifications for the position. He also responded to questions relating to his qualifications for the position of U.S. Attorney General. It is the view of the Committee that Flash’s qualifications identified in his statements apply with equal force in the instant case and address any outstanding concerns relating to Flash’s “lack of experience.”

He was also able to respond thoughtfully to tough questioning on substantive legal issues. Representative Cuauhxolotl grilled Flash on matters like whether the President can be indicted, whether the death penalty ought to be unconstitutional, and whether automatic pay raises are constitutional in light of the twenty-seventh amendment. Senator /u/Kingthero also posed five tough, substantive questions, to which Flash responded thoroughly and well.

Indeed, throughout Flash’s responses in that hearing, he provided citations and event direct quotations to official Department of Justice Memoranda, case law, and statutes, as well as analysis thereof. This is the sort of high-quality research and analysis required of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

However, the Committee regrets that it is unable to provide a rating of “well qualified.” Despite serving as the Attorney General for the State of Dixie and the United States Attorney General, the nominee lacks any experience whatsoever engaging in litigation of any kind. Likewise, the nominee lacks any judicial decisions upon which further analysis of the nominee’s qualifications can be conducted.

[M: We are aware that Flash has substantial real-life qualifications for the position of Supreme Court Justice, which is another reason why the lack of sim experience did not result in a “not qualified” rating.]

/u/Comped

Regrettably, the Committee must give Comped a “not qualified” rating. This rating arises both from the concerns voiced by the legal community in the course of the interviews and from the Committee’s findings upon a review of Comped’s record.

It is true that /u/Comped does have extensive litigation experience before both state and federal courts, and that he has served on two state high courts (though the Committee notes that, like Flash, the nominee has authored no judicial opinions). This experience would have ordinarily supported a rating of “qualified” if that experience reflected ordinary competence and understanding of the law.

But experience alone is not enough. Serving competently on the Nation’s highest court requires mastery of the myriad legal concepts that inevitably come before it: if the Supreme Court errs on a matter of law, there is no recourse. On this count, the nominee disappoints significantly.

To begin, many interviewees cited concerns over Comped’s grasp on basic precepts of law. Comped is “[u]nder-qualified and incompetent,” said one interviewee. He even forgets “constitutional basics like severability and constitutional avoidance.”

Those concerns are confirmed by the Committee’s review of Comped’s work, which contains a concerning pattern of flagrant legal errors. For example, during a previous confirmation hearing [link], Comped was asked whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on an issue of state law is binding on courts of that state. It isn’t. Yet, despite having opportunity to conduct his own research on the question, Comped responded: “Yes. The answer is the same either way, Supreme Court precedent applies first and foremost.” Furthermore, during Comped’s confirmation hearing to be Attorney General, he failed to respond thoroughly to substantive legal questions. In some instances he did not respond at all.

The nominee’s practice before the Supreme Court is also concerning. For example, as Attorney General for the GuiltyAir administration, Comped filed In re: State of Sierra Executive Order 23 (“Protecting Our Media”), Case No. 19-08, while that same order was being challenged before the Sierra Supreme Court. There were several glaring problems with the lawsuit. Of most concern was Comped’s representations to the Court that the two actions involved different legal matters despite the fact that the state challenge involved identical legal theories: that the Order was federally pre-empted under the Communications Act of 1934, and that the Order constituted a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Also of concern is that Comped’s Petition for Certiorari included citation to only one court decision and one statute. He provide no authority at all for his claim that the Order was “a clear regulatory taking.” In addition, on questioning from the Court relating to the Colorado River abstention doctrine, Comped made several fatal errors. For example, that doctrine calls upon courts to consider “whether either court has assumed jurisdiction over property”–but Comped argued that abstention did not apply because “both courts” were able to exercise jurisdiction over property. Unsurprisingly, the Court booted the suit until the state court had resolved the action pending there.

Comped’s uncited assertions of law are apparently common. For example, in his Emergency Application for a Preliminary Injunction in 19-01, he provided not a single reference to authority of any kind except a vague nod to the principle of “estoppel,” which he claimed to apply without explanation or analysis.

The nominee’s state-court practice is little better. Comped’s action against the Atlantic Commonwealth in In re: B020, the Dignity Act contained not a single citation to case law, statutes (apart from the statute challenged), or secondary sources. Moreover, the lawsuit stated that a basis for the challenge was that “[t]he bill is very big.” In In Re: B042, Young Inventor Act, Comped’s challenge cited only to the challenged statute and Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution. He cited to and considered no case law.

Even where the nominee did cite to authority, he often missed the mark in correctly identifying or applying relevant law. In In re: Executive Order 30, before the Dixie State Supreme Court, Comped argued that federal law pre-empted a state executive order under which state officials were to “halt immigration charges against Cuban Refugees.” In reality, the nominee’s theory would have required a gross violation of the well-established principle of federalism that the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal law–or to enforce state-level immigration law. The Court agreed and summarily dismissed the suit.

Comped’s filing in In re: Dixie Constitution is so bizarre that it alone precludes a rating of “qualified.” There, the nominee filed an action alleging that Executive Orders are unenforceable under the Dixie Constitution for reasons that remain a mystery. Apparently, he did not understand the difference between something “having the force of law” and something being a law.

Moreover, he requested that the Dixie Supreme Court “strike” a portion of the state constitution as unconstitutionally “vague.” Even if that Court could strike a portion of the constitution as “vague,” that principle would require the striking of substantial portions of the federal constitution and most state constitutions: constitutions are vague so as to allow flexibility in their application; they are not statutes.

Conclusion

In light of the above facts and findings, the Committee informs the United States Senate that it deems /u/IAmATinman (“Flash”) to be “qualified” to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, but does not find /u/Comped to be qualified to serve as a justice of the United States Supreme Court.