Gina Parker

Yes, it was rightly decided. The 14th Amendment does not create the right to abortion. This right is not enumerated in the Constitution, and therefore, the Court should not have fabricated this right as it did in Roe. Roe was nothing but an exercise of "raw judicial power" that usurped States' rights. Dobbs restored the rights of individual states to regulate abortion. As Justice Samuel Alito penned in the opinion, "Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

Strongly Disagree

Life should be protected from conception until natural death.

Strongly Agree

Every person is created in the image of God - fearfully and wonderfully made. So, life at every stage is precious and should be protected. Moreover, God is sovereign over when and how a person dies. God gives purpose to life even to the end and even during times of suffering. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a rejection of the gift of life and usurpation of His authority. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop warned that the practice of medicine "cannot be both our healer and our killer."

Strongly Agree

George Washington said, “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society” which is still true today. Religious freedom is our most fundamental freedom and deserves the highest level of protection. Religious freedom allows us to live, work, voice our opinions, and worship as we believe in public without fear of government regulation or retribution. Unfortunately, today people are encountering religious persecution on the job, at school, and in the pulpit.

Strongly Agree

The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is not referring to the National Guard but to well-armed citizens who can defend themselves, their property and even this nation. Nations that have disarmed their citizenry have lost their liberties. Stalin is a prime example - he confiscated the people's guns, property, and money. Guns secure our liberties!

To prevent tyranny and abuse, the Framers established a system of government with three equal yet distinct branches of government - the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Each branch has separate and distinct powers which creates checks and balances.

Protect freedoms!!!

While Justice Scalia has passed away, he remains the justice that I most respect because he ardently believed in strict constitutional interpretation as opposed to viewing the Constitution as an evolving document subject to the social and political currents of the times. Justice Scalia speaking at SMU in 2013, unequivocally declared that the “constitution is not a living document.” He said, “It is dead, dead, dead.” He then added, “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” I admire him because he respected the Constitution and the rule of law. Men and women in black robes have supplanted the rule of law with the rule of judges. Justice Scalia described it this way, “What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become justices of this Court, that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional? . . . Day by day, case by case, [the Court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” It is imperative for the integrity of the judicial system to be returned to the rule of law. I also admire Justice Samuel Alito. He wrote an outstanding majority opinion in the Dobbs case. He opined in the opinion, "Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives." Thus, a government of the people. Along with Justice Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas has been a stalwart on the court preserving the rule of law and upholding the Constitution.

This phrase does not appear in the Constitution. However, the 1st Amendment prevents the government from establishing or favoring a religion and protects citizens from government interference with their religious freedoms. Citizens have the right to exercise their religious beliefs in private and in the public square.

Absolutely if they are committed to keeping their oath to uphold the Constitution. This can be accomplished by rightly interpreting the 1st Amendment and thereby preventing the government and private institutions from infringing upon a person's right to practice their religious beliefs in public whether it is prayer in school, a Bible study at work, or other religious practices.

It was wrongly decided. As Chief Justice Roberts opined in his strongly worded dissent, “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” Justice Thomas also dissented, “In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs.” In summary, this is a case of egregious judicial activism.

No, judicial activism.

Strongly Agree

I agree with this holding because parents' rights are paramount to the government and should be strongly protected.

I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas' perspective about precedents (stare decisis): “Federal courts primarily interpret and apply three bodies of federal positive law—the Constitution; federal statutes, rules, and regulations; and treaties” and as such this “removes most (if not all) of the force that stare decisis held in the English common-law system, where judicial precedents were among the only documents.” Therefore, judges should apply the Constitution and statutes and not create their legal tests. In summary, it is the Constitution that is the supreme law of the land, and then the plain meaning of the statutory text is authoritative. Precedents may provide guidance, but they do not trump the Constitution or prevent reversal of cases where Constitutional issues were decided erroneously nor should they usurp the laws that were enacted by the people via their elected representatives. If a precedent ignores the plain meaning of the statute, it should have no force of law.

When it violates the United States Constitution and/or the Texas Constitution. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no other law or precedent is equal to or superior to it. The Constitution is the ultimate precedent by which all other precedents must be reviewed. No precedent, regardless of its age, should be followed if it violates the Constitution. This same approach should be taken when reviewing prior precedents relative to our Texas Constitution. The key is Constitutional supremacy and not judicial activism. Also, decisions that were erroneously decided in the past for other than Constitutional reasons may be overturned. For example, a case may be overturned where the plain meaning of the statute was not rightly applied to the facts of the case. Precedents provide guidance but are not absolutely binding upon the Court. See the answer in Question 7 above.

NEVER!

No

The Constitution is not an evolving document that changes with the political whims or the cultural changes of the time. We do not need activist judges who undermine the Constitution and change the culture of America to align with their political persuasion.

A sound judicial temperament in my opinion is respect for the rule of law and for those who appear before you as a judge. In my many years of practicing law, it is unfortunate that too often a black robe on a lawyer can turn them into arrogant, condescending “kings.” The lawyers, the clients they represent, and the judicial system deserve respect. In summary, I believe there are several key qualities: *Integrity *Courage *Treat others with respect. *Be timely in rendering decisions.

First of all, I will be true to the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, and the laws of this great state. I will keep my commitment to this even when under pressure from my colleagues, party leaders, or the public. It is also important that there never be any ex-parte communication.

Hands of Hope International Ministry, President & Secretary (reach over 5 mil people with the gospel through the support of Hungarian Christian TV); Christian Women in Media, Member; Christians Engaged, Intercessor & Donor; Olive Branch Church; TFRW & my local MCRW; TCDLA; Lifetime Member of the NRA; McLennan County Bar; and The Federalist Society, Member.

2014 Republican Primary 2014 General Election 2016 Republican Primary 2016 General Election 2018 Republican Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election 2022 Republican Primary 2022 General Election

I have always voted Republican.

Never

Never

I'm a strict constructionist. Therefore, I agree with Justice Scalia who ardently believed in strict constitutional interpretation as opposed to viewing the Constitution as an evolving document subject to the social and political currents of the times. Justice Scalia speaking at SMU in 2013, unequivocally declared that the “constitution is not a living document.” He said, “It is dead, dead, dead.”

My Christian faith and the Word of God are the foundation of my worldview. I believe the inerrant Word of God is a source of wisdom and understanding and provides direction for godly living that is the foundation for happy families and sound government. From my Christian values flow wisdom, discernment, a love for the truth, integrity, a heart for justice, and courage. I will never succumb to political correctness because of these values which are essential for godly leadership.

Unequivocally parents' rights are paramount and should be strongly protected. Parents should be able to direct the upbringing of their children without government interference. Schools should not be allowed to undermine parental authority concerning a child's beliefs, including their sexual identity.

Strongly Disagree

No, because God created male and female which is biologically determined at birth.

Jeremiah 17:9 poignantly describes the human condition, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" This is because of the fall of man when sin entered the world. Paul described the fall, "You know the story of how Adam and Eve landed us in this dilemma we're in - first sin, then death, and no one exempt from either sin or death. That sin disturbed relations with God in everything and everyone" (Rom. 5:12-13, MSG). But by faith in Christ, we're redeemed.

Strongly Disagree

CRT falsely teaches that people with white skin are inherently racist by the mere color of their skin despite their words or actions. It is in effect reverse discrimination, and it is undoubtedly divisive. It teaches our children to hate each other. It undermines decades of progress to eliminate racism and keeps us from becoming a more perfect union.