Kerry Lee Morgan
Libertarian | Michigan
Candidate Profile*
Originalist (Conditional)
*Additional information appears below for educational purposes; however, only data received prior to the candidate deadline was considered during Panel Evaluation.
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Kerry Lee Morgan
Party
Libertarian
Election Year
2022
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court Justice
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Michigan State University, East Lansing, BA, 1977
Detroit College of Law, Detroit, JD, 1981
Regent University, Virginia Beach, MA, 1985
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
Previous Races
ENDORSEMENTS*
*These endorsements were received after the deadline and were not considered in the Panel Evaluations and are for additional educational purposes only.
CONSERVATIVE (2)
*Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
*Detroit Regional Chamber PAC
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (4)
Bill Schuette (2014)
Decider PAC (2007)
Maddock Leadership Fund (2022)
Tom McMillin (2014)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
Kerry Lee Morgan is a non-partisan candidate who was nominated by the Libertarian Party.
Biographical Information:
- “He completed an extensive legal review of religious liberty principles and Supreme Court cases titled, Unalienable Rights, Equality and the Free Exercise of Religion.” One section of this article “focuses on the supreme law of the American regime--the laws of nature and of nature's God.”
- “In 1997, University Press of America published his book, Real Choice, Real Freedom in American Education, a scholarly work that articulates the legal and Constitutional case for parental rights and against governmental control of American Education.”
- Kerry Lee Morgan “engages in pro-bono work by advising parents on their rights in connection with the home education of their children.”
Highlights from the candidate’s Vote411 Voter Guide interview:
- “The Supreme Court needs Justices who will apply the law as written, not as it ought to be written in the mind of the Judge.”
- “Securing natural rights is the states only compelling interest.”
Judge Voter Guide gave 3 stars.
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Strongly Disagree
The Foundation of the states and United States as stated in the Declaration of Independence declares its reliance on the laws of nature and of nature's God which posits that their is one race--the human race and that mankind, male and female, are all created equal.
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Strongly Agree
The Declaration of Independence's reliance on the laws of nature and of nature's God presupposes reliance on a theistic understanding that all lawful civil governments are created by the consent human beings, not God, and as such like every human creation must be severely limited in its power, and is legally and morally accountable to the Almighty and the people for its conduct.
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Christian
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Assist homeschooling parents to resist state control of their schools. Guide Michiganders in asserting religious exemptions to unwanted vaccination mandates. I also participate in drafting and filing Amicus briefs. See https://lonang.com/amicus-briefs/
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
No
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
The Supreme Court needs Justices who will apply the law as written, not as it ought to be written in the mind of the Judge. My background in the law for over forty years has taught me the importance of this purpose. My experience in the practice of law before judges has taught me that judges are sometimes reluctant to simply apply the law as written. I can bring respect for the written law and the Constitution in particular to the bench, so that Justice may be done.
Why should the voters choose you?
Article VI of the Michigan Constitution provides the Court exercise only judicial power, including superintending control, adopting rule of practice and procedure, and to issue written decisions in cases and controversies that come before it. In so doing it must secure the rights of the people by confining the government's power strictly within its Constitutional boundaries. It does not enjoy any power to make law or carry the law into execution. It does not enjoy any power to substitute its own political matrix for that of the parties, the legislature or Governor. It has no power to insert new rights into the Constitution. These are the values I bring to the Court.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Choose not to answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Agree
Justices should recognize that the organic laws of the union animate the federal and state constitutions when discerning a constitution's meaning. Justices should not "interpret" law whatsoever, unless it is first established to be ambiguous.
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Judges may look to the ordinary meaning of the statutory text, the broader statutory context, canons of construction, and legislative history, but the key element is to discern what the text meant to these who adopted it by relying on the language in the text they actually chose.
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Justice Clarence Thomas
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
The Court's job is not to balance power and rights. The Court's job is to secure the unalienable, constitutional and statutory rights of the people from lawless governmental power. The framers did all the textual balancing that was necessary. The Court must do no more.
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Justice Kavanaugh, dissenting.
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
The separation of church and state is not stated in the Constitution. As a court made doctrine it has no place in Constitutional interpretation. For an understanding of the free exercise and "no establishment" of religion principles in the Constitution, see "Unalienable Rights, Equality and the Free Exercise of Religion" at https://lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/religious-liberty/rights-free-exercise-of-religion/
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Strongly Agree
All Constitutional rights deserve the highest level protection, especially now the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. As to religious liberty, see "Unalienable Rights, Equality and the Free Exercise of Religion" at https://lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/religious-liberty/rights-free-exercise-of-religion/
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Judicial decisions are not law, they are simply evidence of law. When a decision is not good evidence of the preexisting law, it should be discarded.
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
It does not fall to judge to Constitutionalize unspecified rights. For an understanding of the deceitfulness of substantive due process theory embraced by both liberal and conservative judges, see Mississippi v. Jackson Women’s Health – LONANG Amicus Brief (Re: Abortion & Right to Life) 07/27/21 at https://lonang.com/amicus-briefs/
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Parents have a natural and unalienable right to direct the care, feeding, education and upbringing of their own children free from state interference, regulation and control. This right is broad enough to decide medical or other treatment on their child's behalf. See "Real Choice, Real Freedom in American Education," available on Amazon.com
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Courts must follow the text.
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
My philosophy is rooted in the law of nature and of nature's God, the same philosophy relied upon by the founders and framers.
