On Nov. 5, Pennsylvanians are set to decide which two candidates will join the ranks of the state Superior Court. To get a better understanding of each candidate's background and judicial philosophy, The Legal has asked each to respond to a questionnaire touching on a variety of topics important to the legal community.

Responses to the questionnaires are set to be published in the weeks leading up to the general election. The third installment comes from candidate Amanda Green-Hawkins, associate counsel to the United Steelworkers union.

The following has been lightly edited for style.

1. What makes a good judge?

Temperament is the most important quality in a judge. Parties and litigants in our courts must be heard and treated respectfully, and a judge's temperament is critical to a party's belief that he/she had their day in court by being heard and treated respectfully. People are more likely to accept a decision, even if they disagree with it, if they are treated fairly. A judge must be able to listen, without expressing exasperation, frustration, annoyance or other behaviors that may reflect bias, and raise concerns about prejudice and injustice in the justice system. A good judicial temperament helps to improve satisfaction with the courts, and perceptions about the courts.

2. How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

The Superior Court is a court of correction that ensures fairness in our judicial system. My judicial philosophy can be described as moderate. I do not believe in adherence to a liberal or conservative judicial philosophy. Each case should be evaluated, based on its own circumstances or merit.

3. What two decisions or cases are you most proud of, and why? Conversely, what two opinions or cases would you like to take back or revise, if you could, and why?

I'm most proud of a case where an employer was ordered to arbitrate a grievance over the denial of pension benefits to approximately 900 of our members. My argument was based on language in an expired agreement, and it was a difficult case. Our members had no other recourse, and this case was the only chance for our members to obtain the benefits.

I'm also proud of a case that I handled pro bono where the state revoked my client's license to operate a family child day care home, without due process. She had been advised by several attorneys that she would not be successful appealing the revocation. She gave up. She accepted my offer to review the matter, and to appeal the matter. We were successful, and she was granted a license to operate again. She returned to providing affordable child care for low-income families, which is desperately needed so those parents can work.

The two cases that I would revise concern the union's duty of fair representation to its members, even in the face of conduct that may be deemed offensive. I would still fulfill my role as a lawyer for the union, but I would also discuss the matters with those who were upset that the union had to represent people who had engaged in offensive conduct. People are more likely to respect a decision, even if they disagree with it, if they have been heard.

4. How have your background, personal experiences and views shaped you as a lawyer, or judge?

Experiences with bias, racism and sexism inform the way that I conduct myself as a lawyer. People must not be viewed as an "ideal" or "less deserving" plaintiff, defendant or other party because of perceptions about them. As a lawyer, access to justice starts with me, and it is my responsibility improve or increase access to justice.

5. How do you differentiate yourself from others seeking to be elevated to the appellate bench?

The Superior Court is the court that impacts Pennsylvanians' lives the most because it renders the most appellate decisions; therefore, it is important that the judiciary reflect and include diverse perspectives and experiences. I am the only candidate who has experience as a union lawyer who has represented everyday working people, and I am the only candidate who is a person of color. These diverse experiences allow me to bring a different and valuable perspective that is important to include when evaluating fairness in our judicial system.

6. Does Pennsylvania need a separate court of criminal appeals to divide the massive workload of the Superior Court?

Approximately 60% of the 8,000 appeals are criminal appeals. Expediency in resolving appeals is indeed important; however, the most important goal is fairness. A separate court of criminal appeals may be warranted to meet the goals of expediency and fairness.

7. What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

The greatest problem is implicit bias. It is prejudice that unconsciously affects decisions, and it is cited as a factor in disparate treatment in the legal profession and judicial system. It inhibits peoples' access to justice because people get the process that someone believes that they are due, instead of the due process as required by our Constitution. Justice and equality demand that people be treated fairly; therefore, judges must be compelled to act with unbiased humanity.

8. How important is consensus—particularly unanimous consensus—in appellate court opinions and are there limits when a judge should only concur, or should they do it any time they feel like it?

Unanimous consensus shows agreement, and that is particularly important on issues of first impression or issues that are deemed especially significant for Pennsylvanians. There should be no limits on concurrence. A judge should always be permitted to explain his/her basis for agreement because it allows people to see and to understand another perspective.

9. How important is stare decisis and when should a court depart from it?

Stare decisis is very important because it helps guide behavior in accordance with the law as explained by the judiciary. Changes in relevant circumstances may warrant a departure from it so that the court's decision is consistent with peoples' lives.

10. Does the court need to become more open and accessible to the press and public?

Yes. If and where possible, the court can hear matters in places other than the traditional sites of Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

11. What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

I am a Democrat; however, my party membership does not define me or my legal outlook. Fairness is the goal of our judicial system, and each case must be evaluated with that in mind.

12. What factors matter in deciding when recusal is necessary, and would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

Recusal is necessary when there is a conflict of interest based on things such as familial or other relationships to a party, certain financial interests or recognized bias. My campaign committee is authorized to accept contributions, and I am generally unaware of the identities of the contributors. I will abide by the judicial code, which requires recusal or disqualification under specific enumerated circumstances, or when my impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

13. Who are your role models and mentors?

My role models and mentors are people who have guided me through adversity, challenged me to do more, and counseled me when they deemed it necessary. This would include my parents, friends and former supervisors and employers.

More from the Pennsylvania Superior Court Candidates: