Just a pity that the candidate did not question the relevance of the question to the proceedings. I feel that would have left the reviewer clutching at straws. Oh well.
"Just a pity that the candidate did not question the relevance of the question to the proceedings" - the candidate wasn't allowed to do so - that was part of the rules. And the reviewer knew that, too - it was, yeah, just another way to reinforce the political dirty-tricks, of course. Sigh...
Hi Tom, thought provoking article, my immediate thought was that the question brought into focus the inability of the reviewer to understand the topic at hand. Would the Judge be expected to know such an answer or would she expect the advocate to provide expertise to the supreme court as part of their case, then based on submissions provide judgement.
Prevalent in modern day interviews is the fact that most panels are made up of people who have no idea of the subject matter at hand, and feel obliged to ask a question relevant or not to the post in question to justify their existence as a panel member.
As per your article would the judge be expected to have prior knowledge of chromosomes or rely on expert testimony?
On "my immediate thought was that the question brought into focus the inability of the reviewer to understand the topic at hand", - agreed that it was unlikely that the Reviewer understood anything at all, though the real objective was a classic political dirty-trick, to make the Judge seem to be incompetent whichever answer the Judge gave.
"Would the Judge be expected to know such an answer" - no. The answer that the judge gave was the correct one: in a court, a judge would not have (and should not claim) competence to answer, but instead should request the assistance of an expert-witness (e.g. a professional biologist, in this case).
"As per your article would the judge be expected to have prior knowledge of chromosomes" - they would have be expected to have enough enough knowledge that they know that they _don't_ have appropriate expertise, and hence that (as per above), yes, they need expert testimony.
Just a pity that the candidate did not question the relevance of the question to the proceedings. I feel that would have left the reviewer clutching at straws. Oh well.
"Just a pity that the candidate did not question the relevance of the question to the proceedings" - the candidate wasn't allowed to do so - that was part of the rules. And the reviewer knew that, too - it was, yeah, just another way to reinforce the political dirty-tricks, of course. Sigh...
Hi Tom, thought provoking article, my immediate thought was that the question brought into focus the inability of the reviewer to understand the topic at hand. Would the Judge be expected to know such an answer or would she expect the advocate to provide expertise to the supreme court as part of their case, then based on submissions provide judgement.
Prevalent in modern day interviews is the fact that most panels are made up of people who have no idea of the subject matter at hand, and feel obliged to ask a question relevant or not to the post in question to justify their existence as a panel member.
As per your article would the judge be expected to have prior knowledge of chromosomes or rely on expert testimony?
Thanks, Robert.
On "my immediate thought was that the question brought into focus the inability of the reviewer to understand the topic at hand", - agreed that it was unlikely that the Reviewer understood anything at all, though the real objective was a classic political dirty-trick, to make the Judge seem to be incompetent whichever answer the Judge gave.
"Would the Judge be expected to know such an answer" - no. The answer that the judge gave was the correct one: in a court, a judge would not have (and should not claim) competence to answer, but instead should request the assistance of an expert-witness (e.g. a professional biologist, in this case).
"As per your article would the judge be expected to have prior knowledge of chromosomes" - they would have be expected to have enough enough knowledge that they know that they _don't_ have appropriate expertise, and hence that (as per above), yes, they need expert testimony.