Bert Richardson

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Ideally, it stands for the proposition that the under the First Amendment, the government should not interfere in a citizen's right to practice the religion of their choice, as long as that religion's practices do not violate public morals or a compelling governmental interest; however, that has not always been the case in the early days of our country. The First Amendment prevents the government from forming a state religion, but I don't believe it prevents the government from recognizing certain religious practices or traditions in our society. Unfortunately, some of those rules have been ambiguous over the years.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I served a two year volunteer mission in Argentina at the age of nineteen. My faith believes in Jesus Christ and the values he taught in the scriptures.I attend church weekly and work in my church when time permits one night during the week in various capacities. I have been married for 35 years and have one son. My religious beliefs are an integral part of my life.

Can't answer (SCJC)

I have been a judge for the last twenty years, so my opportunities to represent anybody have been limited. However I did successfully represent a world class marathoner and mother of 4 against the New Zealand Olympic committee in 2004 and 2008 after they refused to place her on their Olympic team.

2012 Republican Primary, 2012 General Election, 2014 Republican Primary, 2014 General Election, 2016 Republican Primary, 2016 General Election, 2018 Republican Primary, 2018 General Election

Very Conservative

There are numerous articles on the internet that validate my conservative positions based on my career as a criminal judge, as well as legal opinions I have written, but none of the above subjects have anything to do with my legal specialty and career, so I am unsure if there is any public information available to validate that answer.

I am running for reelection. I am a former State and Federal prosecutor, that is Board Certified in Criminal Law (less than 2% of lawyers) with a substantial amount of trial and appellate experience. I was appointed to bench in 1999 in Bexar County. From 2009-2014 I served as a Senior Visiting Judge across the State in over 50 counties. That diverse experience provided me the opportunity to handle every type of case the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviews. As a trial and appellate attorney and judge, I have participated in 12 actual innocence cases, hundreds of post conviction writs, I have written and participated in hundreds of appeals and over 50 capital cases. In 2015 I was named a Distinguished Law Graduate St. Mary's University School of Law.

Criminal law full-time for over 32 years.

NO

My legal qualifications and judicial experience. 1)I have practiced criminal law full time for over 32 years. 2) Currently a Judge on Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 3) Former State and Federal Prosecutor with significant trial and appellate experience. 4) State District Court Judge for over 15 years. 5) Board Certified in Criminal Law. 6) Adjunct Law Professor 10+ years. 7) As a trial and appellate judge I have participated in 12 actual innocence cases and hundreds of post conviction writs.

I am running for reelection to the State high court for criminal cases. This Court reviews death penalty cases, post conviction writs including actual innocence claims and appeals from intermediate appellate courts. Simply put, we decide life, death and liberty issues. These are complex cases. I have the experience for the job. My experience includes hundreds of appeals and writs, over fifty death penalty cases and twelve actual innocence cases. I am a former State and Federal prosecutor, and was a trial judge for over 15 years. I am Board certified in Criminal Law, have taught at the university level for over 10 years and was named a Distinguished Law Graduate of my alma mater. I am qualified for this position.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Several depending on the case.

I don't believe the legislative history should be used to interpret the law. Statutes should be interpreted literally. Having been involved in discussions on the legislative intent of a particular statute, and whether to include that intent in an opinion, there are just too many variables at play. As statutes make their way through the legislative process there are too many competing interests on and off the record discussions to accurately determine the legislative intent, other than the literal language of the statute. I am aware of published cases from my Court that allow for the use of it in limited circumstances.

In Ramos v. Louisiana the USSCT opinions pointed out several factors that have been considered in past opinions before departing from precedent, some of those include: 1) Does the current precedent work; 2) Is it inconsistent with other opinions since it was written; 3) Is it universally relied upon; 4) When the underlying precedent of the original opinion was not agreed upon by a majority of the justices. There are likely several other factors to consider that would be case specific.

Individual States may grant greater protections to its citizens via their own constitution and statutes. A judge could refer to to either of those sources that might extend greater protections to its citizens, in addition to any legislation passed that might benefit a citizen. Furthermore the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” These rights are often referred to as non-enumerated rights that courts derive from the Constitution and other sources. Once found to be a right under the Constitution, they become rights of the citizens just like more specific rights enumerated in the Constitution. These non-enumerated rights granted by courts can be considered controversial at times.