The difficulty is that the right to privacy, ... is a right to have the government stop you from speaking about me.

The sense is that he is very highly qualified and has an excellent judicial temperament, which means he is seen as a calm and thoughtful person, which is what you want in a judge,

There's just no way that Apple can win.

who answered questions in great detail and got rejected.

It doesn't limit itself to defamation. The principle is the same, whether it's libel or discrimination.

I t is a normal part of the employment process to evaluate one's subordinates.

Lawyers tend to have something credible to say about an important subject. Lawyers have been educated about the legal system, which people are interested in.

I sympathize with this person, but it's really not any different than a posting on an anonymous Web page.

He is a person of proven legal brilliance and judicial temperament, and he is respected by scholars on the left as well as on the right,

But they were gathering dust in some courthouse basement. These things were technically accessible, but unless you had a lot of time or could afford to hire a private detective to go look this stuff up, they were effectively secret from you.