Greg Shaw

I believe that the holding of Dobbs v. Jackson is correct. As noted by the United States Supreme Court, it cannot be concluded from the text of the Constitution that a protected right to abortion exists. The issue of abortion was properly returned to the individual states and their elected officials for regulation.

I have no problem with the constitutional analysis and the holding in Washington v. Glucksberg and I am bound by it. From a personal standpoint, I do not agree with physician assisted suicide.

Strongly Agree

I am a strong proponent of the sanctity and dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

The judiciary's role in matters relating to abortion is the same as in all legal matters. Courts, state and federal, are charged with the responsibility of stating what the law is and then fairly applying that law in cases argued before them. Dobbs is binding precedent in all Courts unless and until it is modified or overruled by the United States Supreme Court.

I believe that religious liberty is very much at risk in the United States today. Evidence of religious intolerance is openly on display in the daily news. Legal challenges to free religious expression in the public and private sectors are not uncommon. Violence directed toward religious groups and institutions seems to be on the rise. Again, the judiciary's role remains the same--strict and fair application of applicable law for the protection of constitutional and statutory rights.

I do not believe that the Establishment Clause requires government to remain strictly secular. Nothing in the history of the establishment of this country suggests to me that our founding fathers intended for our laws and customs to exclude this nation's rich religious heritage.

I have no problem with the holding of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

I am a Christian and I have a Biblical world view. I have recited the Apostles' creed many times in church, and it reflects what it means to me to be a Christian in basic and straight forward terms.

Any choices with respect to the education and medical care of children are first and foremost the responsibility and domain of the childrens' parents. Any laws designed to interfere with parental rights must, in my view, be carefully scrutinized.

There are only two biological sexes--male and female. I believe that any discussion of this topic must logically begin and end with this irrefutable premise. I have not had the opportunity or occasion to research this legal issue further. Therefore, I can express no view.

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

I am a social, fiscal, and judicial conservative. The values, beliefs, and policies of the Republican Party align with mine.

I am a judicial conservative. I believe strongly in following the doctrine of separation of powers, whereby judges do not attempt to exercise the executive and legislative functions. The judicial branch of government is charged with the responsibility of stating what the law is and applying that law to specific cases. The legislative branch makes the law. The executive branch enforces the law. I believe that judges should not attempt to exercise the powers of the other coordinate branches.

I do not believe that the law simply evolves over time to reflect contemporary values. Laws are implemented by the people, usually through constitutions or statutes, to reflect contemporary values held at the time of implementation. Any modifications to those laws should be made by the people, not by courts reflecting on what the law probably ought to be. Judges are not legislators.

Justice Antonin Scalia was a favorite of mine.

I disagree with the holding of Obergefell.

When constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face, a judge should just apply it. When an ambiguity in the text is demonstrated, whether that ambiguity is patent or latent, the doctrine of separation of powers permits a judge to engage in construction to discern the intended meaning of the text.

As noted above, as a judicial conservative, I follow the doctrine of separation of powers, which requires the exercise of judicial restraint. I do not legislate from the bench in order to judicially establish public policy. Doing that is the very definition of judicial activism.

As noted above, the proper role of a judge in any given case is to strive to fully understand the applicable law and fairly apply it.

Generally no.

If properly presented, erroneous constitutional interpretation should be corrected.

Space does not permit a full discussion of the historical origins of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. From my perspective, and for present day purposes, it necessarily sets a high bar for conviction in a criminal case because of the potential for the loss of a person's life, liberty, or property upon conviction.

Again, as noted above, a judge's role in any case is to fairly apply the law to a given set of facts and provide whatever remedy is deemed appropriate.

The Second Amendment's expression of the right to keep and bear arms protects an individual right held by the people of the United States. Included in the Bill of Rights, it was deemed fundamental by the Founders as a necessary vanguard against potential governmental tyranny.

It appears to me that the legislative branch was perceived by the Founders to be the most powerful arm of the federal government.