Bert Richardson

As a judicial candidate it is inappropriate for me to comment on a matters that could potentially be considered before me. However, the Dobbs majority opinion states that the federal constitution does not confer a constitutional right to abortion. TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently. B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (10) A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case. This prohibition applies to any candidate for judicial office, with respect to judicial proceedings pending or impending in the court on which the candidate would serve if elected.

No, it does not. In rare unanimous opinion by the USSCT they held that physician assisted suicide is not a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As a judicial candidate it is inappropriate for me to comment any further on a matter that could potentially be considered before me. TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently. B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (10) A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case. This prohibition applies to any candidate for judicial office, with respect to judicial proceedings pending or impending in the court on which the candidate would serve if elected.

Strongly Agree

As a State of Texas high court judge my role would be to follow the constitution and laws of Texas that are consistent with the Dobbs opinion. Beyond that, as a judicial candidate it is inappropriate for me to comment on matters that could potentially be considered before me. However, the Dobbs majority opinion does state that the federal constitution does not confer a right to a constitutional right to abortion. TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently. B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (10) A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case. This prohibition applies to any candidate for judicial office, with respect to judicial proceedings pending or impending in the court on which the candidate would serve if elected.

As far as my religion is concerned, not at this time. As for others, claiming it might be at risk, that gets into an area I have previously addressed regarding my restrictions on answering such a question.

That is a hotly contested subject in both the legal and public arena right now and I decline to answer that. As a judicial candidate it is inappropriate for me to comment on matters that could potentially be considered before me. TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently. B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (10) A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case. This prohibition applies to any candidate for judicial office, with respect to judicial proceedings pending or impending in the court on which the candidate would serve if elected.

The answer on whether it was rightfully decided depends on whom you ask. Seven USSCT justices held that it was rightfully decided, so as I have previously stated, as a judicial candidate it is inappropriate for me to comment on matters that could potentially be considered before me. TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently. B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (10) A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case. This prohibition applies to any candidate for judicial office, with respect to judicial proceedings pending or impending in the court on which the candidate would serve if elected.

I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I served a two year mission for my church in Argentina.

Parents have the right to raise their children as they deem appropriate, beyond that statement I decline to say anymore based on my understanding of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

I won't even attempt to answer that question, because clearly in this environment it is a matter that could come before me as a judge in many ways. As a judicial candidate it is inappropriate for me to comment on a matter that could potentially be considered before me. TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently. B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (10) A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case. This prohibition applies to any candidate for judicial office, with respect to judicial proceedings pending or impending in the court on which the candidate would serve if elected.

No

No

2016 Republican Primary 2016 General Election 2018 Republican Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election 2022 Republican Primary 2022 General Election 2024 Republican Primary 2024 General Election

The legislature makes the laws and judges are obligated to follow the laws and constitution as written.

I believe judges should apply the law according to its original meaning. In other words, as the law is written. If laws need to be changed that is the role of the legislature unless the laws passed are unconstitutional.

There have been over 100 U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and many have reflected my judicial philosophy at one time or another. However, having served on a State high court for almost 12 years I have a tremendous amount of respect for Sandra Day O'Connor's work on the USSCT and how she lived her life. Do I agree with all of her opinions? No, but I have not agreed on every opinion any single USSCT justice authored.

That issue is still debated in many legal circles, although for now the USSCT seems reluctant to revisit the issue, even in light of attempts to reconsider it. However, the Obergefell majority opinion does state that the federal constitution does confer same-sex marriage right to couples. Beyond that, as a judicial candidate it is inappropriate for me to comment on matters that could potentially be considered before me. TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently. B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (10) A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case. This prohibition applies to any candidate for judicial office, with respect to judicial proceedings pending or impending in the court on which the candidate would serve if elected.

A) If the text is clear a judge has an obligation to follow the text. B) If unclear, based on state and federal legal opinions across this country, courts may use a variety of ways to reach a decision including, but not limited to, legislative history and intent and other means.

My view is that judges should use restraint when applying the law to cases and opinions, and follow the law as I have previously noted. An activist judge does the opposite and applies the law like they want it to be and may even expand or reduce rights the legislature constitution has created.

Follow the laws and constitution just as the oath of office states. And also to abide by the judicial rules set out in the Code of Judicial Conduct. This is the oath: "I do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of __ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God. NOTE: This answer could take an entire semester of law school.

Rarely, if ever.

Depends on the status or position of that judge. If a higher court departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning for whatever reason, lower courts are bound to follow it. However, having worked on a state high court, some judges have disagreed and write dissenting opinions to the precedent.

I agree with this statement, but even though it is a high burden some people are unjustly convicted. I have written opinions in some of those cases declaring a person actually innocent, including one where a person spent over 20 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. This space only gives me 1000 words to comment on this topic, so I will refer you to my 100+page opinion from 2024. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/tx-court-of-criminal-appeals/116286950.html

In the State of Texas, the state high court for criminal cases, the texas Court of Criminal Appeals has the authority to declare a wrongfully convicted person "actually innocent."' In doing so, that entitles a person to financial compensation from the State based on the amount of time they were wrongfully convicted and incarcerated. I have participated and written opinions in several of those cases.

Under current U.S. Supreme Court cases, one can own, keep and bear arms with very few restrictions.

All 3 branches are considered co-equal, they just have different roles and authority. Note: Is this a trick question?