Candidate Responses to Voter Guide Questions
Candidates were asked to provide answers to seven fundamental, nonpartisan questions for this voter guide. Candidates were asked not to make comparisons with any other candidate. Candidates were advised that their answers would be limited to 250 words per question. Each candidate's answers are reprinted verbatim here up to that word limit.
1. How have your training, professional experience, and interests prepared you to serve on the Alabama Supreme Court?
|
|
For years, I served as a private attorney promoting pro family legislation in Alabama state government. I was co-founder of a state affiliate of Focus on the Family. I was later hired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and prosecuted hundreds of cases, including several capital murder cases, before the Alabama Supreme Court. I then served as General Counsel for the trial courts of Alabama and as legal adviser to the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. And now, for nearly six years, I have served on the Alabama Supreme Court as an associate justice.
I am a strong supporter of citizen participation in our judicial selection process. I have promoted this through speaking at Tea Party rallies and other forums where the rule of law is promoted. |
| 2. What do you consider to be the three most important attributes of a judge? |
|
1. Faith- a judge must understand that he himself must answer before a Higher Court. Too many judges today believe they are the "top of the food chain" so to speak, and regularly violate the law and their oaths of office. Instead of fairly administering the law, they legislate from the bench.
2. Courage- A judge must be willing to stand alone and even get confrontational when necessary to defend the Constitution and inalienable rights of citizens who come before them for justice.
3. Judicial Philosophy- A judge must be committed to the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law does not mean "rule of lawyers." The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not a judge's opinion of the Constitution. The Rule of Law means that judges are under the Constitution just like everyone else. As a conservative judge, I hold a judicial philosophy that defends the Constitution, and mandates that judges stay within the bounds the Constitution sets for them.
Liberal activist judges hold a judicial philosophy where judges themselves are the supreme law of the land. That is why judges have been able to get away with destroying families, raising taxes, violating property rights, and citing foreign law when ruling on cases before them. |
| 3. What is your judicial philosophy? |
|
I am a conservative "strict constructionist," meaning I believe the Constitution and laws made in pursuance to the Constitution should be interpreted as the framers of the law intend-- not the way a judge, psychologist, focus group, liberal college professor, or opinion poll says it should be interpreted. If we don't like what the Constitution says, we can amend it though the process laid out in the law itself. The Constitution should not be amended by a judge through a court ruling. This practice represents the undoing of our Constitutional system. |
| 4. How do you define “judicial independence,” and how important is it to our judicial system? |
|
Judicial independence means weighing cases only on the legal merits of the case. It means not being influenced by any outside interests, whether it be the Governor, legislature, trial lawyer firms, or large corporations. It means being fair and balanced.
Judicial independence does not mean that judges should be independent of any accountability to voters, or even the law itself, as many advocates of so-called judicial independence espouse today by trying to take away the peoples' right to elect their judges.
In my experience, the only people having a problem with judicial independence are liberal activist judges, who are regularly carried away by the winds of current legal fads, and desire to be "independent" of the Constitution. |
| 5. What is the greatest area of need in the Alabama justice system, and how should the Alabama Supreme Court respond, if at all? |
|
I believe Alabama's judicial system is very competent and serves the people well. The only real area of need is for our judges to resist the pernicious attempts to take away the right of the people to elect their judges. Liberal activists like billionaire George Soros have committed $ millions to end judicial elections and move to an appointment system, where judges are selected by a small group of liberal lawyers and have no accountability to the voters.
The courts have become the battleground of choice for the radical Left, which seeks to accomplish by judicial mandate, what it can't accomplish through the legislative process, or referendum of the people. Alabama judges need to resist this trend and vocally defend the right of the people to elect their judges. |
| 6. What part, if any, should public opinion play in the decision of a judge? |
|
Public opinion is just that, public opinion. Judges rule according to the law. Where the confusion arises in the judiciary is in differing definitions of "law." Many liberals believe judicial "opinions" are law. Judicial opinions may carry the force of law to the two parties before the judge, but not automatically to everyone else. It is the exclusive role of the legislature to make laws that apply to everyone, according to the guidelines set forth by the Constitution. When judges make law through their opinions, they become dictators, not judges.
The only public opinion a judge should consider is public opinion expressed through laws passed by an elected legislature and made in pursuance to the Constitution. |
| 7. In a case before the Court, how should a judge handle a conflict between his/her personal beliefs and the law? |
|
My personal belief is that the law should be followed as written, unless it conflicts with the Constitution. Consequently, I see no conflict with my personal opinions and what the law requires. The only people with conflicts between their personal beliefs and the law are liberal activist judges, who want their personal beliefs to be the supreme law of the land.
For example, take the judges who are mandating same-sex marriage across the country. They are not upholding the law. Everywhere the people have been consulted through referendum or their elected legislatures, they have rejected same-sex marriage. And there is certainly no precedent for same-sex marriage in our laws or heritage. The reason we have same-sex marriage in America today is because liberal activist judges have chosen to elevate their private political agendas above the law. This is unacceptable and nothing more than tyranny.
Incidentally, no state where judges are elected by the people has had a problem with judges legalizing same-sex marriage. It's no wonder that liberals like George Soros are donating $ millions to leftist organizations to stop election of judges. |
|
