I would agree with the commentator that the Supreme Court is not the moral conscience of the nation or the state, and I agree with the statement of Justice Holmes that a justice has a duty not to invoke a personal standard of justice. Justice Holmes and the legal editor likely made these comments because, in resolving many of the important constitutional and legal issues that come before the Supreme Court, there will occasionally be greatly conflicting moral or political issues underlying the constitutional or legal matters the Court is properly required to decide. 

Some judicial thought has suggested that the standard of what is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment is an evolving standard and moves with contemporary society's consensus about what is consistent with human dignity, what is too cruel, etc. Please comment on this idea.

I am not aware of which respected jurists have made the comments suggested by your question. The only context in which I am aware of any extensive discussion of the issue of cruel and unusual punishment relates to the death penalty and its imposition. As a state senator in the early 1980s, I co-wrote the legislation that brought the death penalty back to Ohio. In order for our statute to pass a constitutional review by the United States Supreme Court, we had to deal with the issue of cruel and unusual punishment, and make certain that our legislation met the standards of that provision. As a member of the Supreme Court of Ohio for the last six years, I have upheld dozens of convictions in which the death penalty has been imposed.

Whenever this issue has been raised, the United States Supreme Court has been consistent in not employing the Eight Amendment to block impositions of the death penalty. The question appears to be so well settled that is is rarely raised in cases that come before us.

Whether or not a state should have a death penalty statute is a constant source of passionate moral, religious, and political discussion. Those are all categories of topics that we do not entertain when considering the existing statute as it is being applied to citizens who have committed murder in the state of Ohio.

Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution protects one's right to privacy? If so, would you briefly comment or explain?

I believe I can best answer this question by referring to a case we had here in 1994, State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron. The case dealt with the request, by the Akron Beacon Journal, for city employee Social Security numbers. We decided that R.C. 149.43 does not mandate that a city disclose the Social Security numbers of its employees upon demand.

All the vital information about your life is in somebody's computer, whether it is the government's, the bank's, or the credit card company's. Your Social Security number is the key to the front door of your home and the key to your safe deposit box. In this internet, high-tech society, if we don't protect things like Social Security numbers from others, there is very little point to the Fourth Amendment.

What are (will be) the major issues in your race?

I believe one of the major issues of this race will be a battle for the independence of the judiciary. An independent judiciary is vital for the proper functioning of our government. History has shown that to be true. But in Ohio, that independence is under assault by well-financed special interest groups who somehow believe they should "win every time" whenever they have a case before the Court.

During my first term on the bench, I have demonstrated my commitment to impartiality and protecting the independence of the judiciary. My basic philosophy is very simple and has governed my six years on the Court: I believe that every person, whether rich or poor, powerful or defenseless, deserves an equal opportunity for justice. 

What changes or improvements would you bring to this office?

In the 25 years that I was engaged in the private practice of law, I prided myself on spending time with hundreds of potential clients who believed strongly that they had been wronged, but in fact either had no case, or may have had a good case but very little chance for successful recovery due to the circumstances of the person causing them harm. I felt it was my duty as a lawyer to either advise those individuals that they didn't have a case or, if they did bring an action, that the ultimate result would just be disappointment, heartbreak and unnecessary expense. In 25 years of practice, I never filed a single lawsuit or defended any lawsuit that was either dismissed by the court or withdrawn voluntarily by my client for lack of merit.

I have brought that same philosophy to the Supreme Court of Ohio. I believe passionately that it is the duty of every trial judge to have a procedure for winnowing out meritless litigation at an early stage, whenever possible, even before needless expensive discovery is undertaken. I also strongly support the efforts that have been promoted by the Supreme Court for alternative dispute resolution. I believe, in particular, that mediation holds great promise in reducing the number of civil cases that are even filed. When I was first elected to the Supreme Court, I suggested that we adopt a mediation program at the Court. While it took longer than I might have hoped, we now have a pilot mediation program in place for several categories of cases which we intend to expand in the near future.

In cases where it appears the jury was influenced by passion and prejudice, I have encouraged my colleagues to consider a reduction in the size of jury awards, particularly with respect to punitive damages. After I urged that, for the first time ever, the Supreme Court significantly reduced the punitive damages in a medical malpracice case, and ordered a substantial reduction in a wrongful death case involving a tragic crash of a private airplane that was negligently filled with the wrong fuel.