Patricia McCullough

Choose not to answer

This issue has been raised across many areas and may come before the Commonwealth Court on which I have been a judge for 12 years. It could also come before the PA Supreme Court for which I am running. Judges are not permitted to opine on matters which may come before them. {All of my answers below are based on my oath to uphold the Constitution and be fair and impartial)

Agree

This was set forth by PA founder William Penn in his Frame of Government and Charter of Privileges (formed basis of U.S. Constitution) and by the Framers in establishing our limited form of government. If we are to maintain the framework for our limited system of government AS FRAMERS ESTABLISHED it, that would "include the values upon which they based it. Reaffirmed on U.S. currency- 1956 and national motto "In God We Trust," Declaration of Independence; Justice Blackstone's Commentaries, etc.

(I will always uphold the Constitution and be fair and impartial.) I was raised in a faith based family and am a born again Christian Catholic. I believe in the sanctity of life, including the unborn. As a judge, the Old Testament Scripture, Micah 6:8, is especially important to me, "To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God." In my life and career I have tried to incorporate the Biblical precepts of unity, love of God and neighbor. I have volunteered with very successful faith based programs that improve the system of justice, provide hope and healing to victims, those battling addiction, youth at risk, veterans, human trafficking, and that reduce the rate of recidivism. I have also volunteered with women's ministry to bring reconciliation and unity across ethnic, racial and denominational backgrounds. I speak at various faith based events and churches. I am inspired by William Penn's vision for PA as the Holy Experiment and his words which encircle the dome of our PA capitol, "There may be room there for such a Holy Experiment, for the nations want a precedent and my God will make it the Seed of a Nation, that an example may be set up to the nations, that we may do the thing that is truly wise and just." This is why Pennsylvania, the birthplace of the One Nation under God, is the keystone in the history of the U.S.. To me this is the call for all elected officials and the people, to be that Holy Experiment and do the thing that is truly wise and just.

Pro bono work with various issues for those who could not afford an attorney. Also assisted non profits starting up with a mission to help others. Assisted with miscellaneous matters like student valedictorian who was told he could not pray at his graduation and community organizations.

no

I have served as a statewide appellate court judge in the Commonwealth Court of PA for over 12 years, handling complex issues and upholding the Constitution in matters that then go directly to the Supreme Court. I also served as a trial court judge when I was appointed by the governor with the unanimous consent of the state senate in 2005 to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. I was a practicing attorney for 25 years in the private, government and corporate sectors. I was appointed by the PA Supreme Court as chair of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee; served on the IOP committee, and the fiscal budget report committee. of the Commonwealth Court; served on and chaired a County Board of Appeal;, was an adjunct faculty member at University of Pittsburgh CGS; director of a faith-based social service agency; radio talk show host; received my B.A. from Univ. of Pgh. graduating magna cum laude; was a Chancellor's Undergraduate Teaching Fellow, member of honor societies- CWENS, Mortar Board and Omicron Delta Kappa; was a finalist for the Pitt Blue and Gold Award; All American Cheerleader; received my J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, was an officer of the Student Bar Association and received a Senatorial Scholarship. My education and extensive experience, particularly serving as a judge on an appellate court for over 12 years handling Constitutional and complex matters, has fully equipped me for the Supreme Court

We are facing a Constitutional Crisis. We need to elect a Supreme Court justice who can and will uphold the constitutional rights of the people. I have and will continue to do that. I offer three reasons why the voters should choose me; experience, the courage and conviction to uphold the Constitution and taking a stand for the people. I am the only candidate who is an appellate court judge with over 12 years of experience deciding complex and Constitutional matters that go directly to the Supreme Court, also served as a trial court judge and a practicing attorney for 25 years in the private, corporate and government sectors. I am ready to hit the ground running on day one in the Supreme Court. I have demonstrated the courage and conviction to uphold the Constitution, no matter what was popular and no matter the cost. Judges cannot say how they will rule, only that they will uphold the Constitution and be fair and impartial. But the people can look at my 12 year record as a statewide appellate judge and see that I have upheld the Constitution and their rights and freedoms. I do not legislate from the bench. Last year alone, I upheld the Second Amendment four times. Over the last two years I ruled in favor of limiting the governor's covid restrictions; was part of a small majority declaring the mail-in ballot law to be unconstitutional; presided over the Congressional Redistricting trial and upheld the right of the legislature to draw the map; opined that healthcare workers who are fired because they chose to wear a mask instead of take the covid vaccine should not lose their unemployment compensation benefits because exercising their medical right to self determination is not willful misconduct; and I am the only judge in the nation who in 2020 ordered the governor to stop certifying the presidential/congressional election due to the unconstitutionality of the mail-in ballot law. I have been threatened by people across the country and subject to false and misleading personal and professional ads. The cost of upholding our Constitutional rights today is high. But the cost of losing our sacred rights and liberties as a nation is even higher. The people can see that I have abided by my oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and Pennsylvania to protect their sacred rights and liberties. I have taken a stand for the people. A controversial pay raise was passed in 2005 and although it was declared lawful, I did not take because the people did not like it. For the first ten years on my court I remitted money to the state treasurer for that raise until the amount reached around $10,000. I now give the money to programs that improve the system of justice. These are programs for veterans, youth at risk, drug addiction, reducing recidivism and human trafficking. The people need to vote like their future depends on it, because it does. I ask them to join me in continuing to uphold the Constitution by electing me to the Supreme Court. Let's keep our nation strong. "...a government of the people, by the people, for the people." In this time of constitutional crisis, you have to vote like your future depends on it, because it does. I have the experience, the courage and conviction to uphold the Constitution and have taken a stand for the people.

2012 Republican Primary 2012 General Election 2014 Republican Primary 2014 General Election 2016 Republican Primary 2016 General Election 2018 Republican Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election

Strongly Agree

The Framers wrote the shortest and strongest document for freedom in the world. The standard for interpreting legal text is to apply the plain meaning of the language. This is called the originalist approach regarding the Constitution and textualist approach regarding legislation. The Framers established three separate but co-equal branches of the government. Judges are not to legislate from the bench.

Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have expressed in their opinions it is not appropriate to rely on legislative history. As Justice Scalia said, "We are governed by laws, not the intentions of the legislature." Occasionally, a specific comment in legislative history might be highlighted to underscore an already drawn legal conclusion that was based on the plain meaning of the law. Bt this should not form the basis of interpretation of the plain meaning of the law.

Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia

The Bill of Rights contains fundamental rights such as freedom of religion and the right to privacy. Any public health regulation is therefore subject to strict scrutiny so as not to jeopardize those rights.

As this issue may come into my court no further answer can be given at this time.

The only role for a judge is to uphold the Constitution and apply the rule of law in a fair and impartial manner in the case before them. Justice Rehnquist noted in his dissenting opinion in Wallace that the Establishment Clause prohibits only government preference of a religion and included an interesting history of the development of the concept from a statement by Thomas Jefferson. The U.S. Supreme Court recently entered opinions in Carson and Kennedy which impact the Establishment Clause.

Strongly Agree

It is a fundamental right and is entitled to the protection of strict scrutiny of any infringement.

Although courts normally follow the doctrine of stare decisis in rendering decisions, there are times when past precedent is overturned. If the decision is in conflict with the U.S. or state Constitution courts should overturn precedent. Also if there is a violation of law, misstatement of facts, change in facts.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply here

That issue is currently before the courts and hence no further answer can be given at this time.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that terminally ill individuals do not have a constitutionally protected right to a physician's assistance to die. It was left to the state to decide. The Supreme Court also found that state laws prohibiting physician assisted suicide did not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

originalist