Strongly Agree

As a textualist, I believe legislative history should be used sparingly. The meaning of the textual words is paramount. Legislative history may be sparingly used to clarify an ambiguous term, to support a textual interpretation, to compare a result that does not seem to align with congressional intent, or to determine whether the legislative body sought to address a particular problem that is before the court.

Justice Clarence Thomas

As issues of public health and individual freedoms could arise in state courts, I am prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct, as an employee of the court working in judicial chambers and as a judicial candidate, from commenting on, projecting, or advising how a court "should" address this issue. A court is able to address any balance between public health and individual freedoms only in the context of the case, including the specific facts and issues as brought before the court. A court cannot on its own address such issues outside the context of a case.

I align most with the dissent written by Justice Alito and joined by Justice Thomas. The dissent reasoned that because no amendment of Title VII had been enacted, “Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of ‘sex’ still means what it has always meant.” Alito’s dissent criticized the majority opinion for “[u]surping the constitutional authority of the other branches” using the “guise of statutory interpretation.” Alito’s dissent acknowledged the “duty is to interpret statutory terms to ‘mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.’”

The "separation of church and state" phrase is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” While Congress makes laws, it is the role of the courts to determine whether certain laws or actions pursuant thereto are constitutional. This occurs only in the context of facts and issues presented in a case that is brought before the court.

Strongly Agree

When analyzing cases, I adhere to stare decisis—the doctrine of honoring precedent. While stare decisis does not prevent precedent from being overturned, the doctrine means that precedent should be rarely overturned, and only when justices deem precedent to be significantly flawed and causing harm.

A judge must look to the text of the Constitution to determine rights. If rights are not specifically mentioned, a Judge must look to binding precedent to determine whether additional rights have been deemed protected by the Constitution.

It is up to parties bringing a case to make a legal argument. Parties must present issues, constitutional protections, relevant statutes, binding or persuasive cases, and analysis. A court should consider only the facts and arguments before it, unique to that case, and cannot consider principles or arguments not brought before the court.

A judge must look to the text of the state Constitution to determine rights. If rights are not specifically mentioned, a Judge must look to binding precedent to determine whether additional rights have been deemed protected by the Constitution.

In drafting judicial opinions for appellate jurists of differing perspectives, my approach has not wavered: I am a textualist. Adherence to textualism means that I believe the law says what it says and means what it says—and does not mean what it does not say. I interpret constitutions and statutes in the same way, by the ordinary meaning of each text. For the United States Constitution and the North Carolina Constitution, I strive to interpret each document based on its original language. That is, I try to discern what the original, ordinary meaning of the text was, based on how the words the drafters used would have been used and understood by a reasonable person at the time. I respect Madisonian principles of the separation of powers and believe the role of a judge is to decide cases based on the facts and the law. I oppose judicial activism whereby a black-robed, quasi-legislator would use the law to advance a political agenda. My judicial philosophy furthers predictability and stability in the law. It likewise aligns with the North Carolina Judicial Branch Mission and Goals whereby judges are to “protect and preserve the rights and liberties of all the people as guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and North Carolina[.]”

To the Court of Appeals, I would bring extensive, relevant experience, especially that of serving nine appellate jurists—four at the Court of Appeals—researching, analyzing, and writing hundreds of judicial opinions. Analytical and decision-making skills necessary in my current role are directly applicable to judicial responsibilities. My unparalleled appellate judicial experience assures my preparation to be a judge. As founder, in-house counsel, and managing partner for a co-owned private sector business, my legal experience is honed by dealing with issues in business, contract, administrative, healthcare, and employment law—among others. My current role is advisory, supporting the hiring, training, supervision, and well-being of team members in multiple states. My business legal experience would be a unique and valuable addition to the Court of Appeals. I also have experience teaching in law schools, a paralegal program, and a graduate education program. My passion for teaching is integrated into my work at the Court of Appeals, where I mentor stellar law students in internships and credit-based externships. For each student, I foster growth in their research, analysis, and writing skills necessary for the work of the courts. Reflecting the academic rigor required of a jurist are my credentials and scholarship. In addition to a Bachelor of Science degree, I hold graduate degrees including a Master of Science, a Master of Public Administration, a Juris Doctorate, and a Doctor of Philosophy. My Ph.D. research centered on higher education law and policy. In addition to a dissertation, I have published articles in law reviews and journals, as well as in education and higher education journals, and a book on risk management in higher education faculty hiring. Through experiences and lifelong learning, I maintain substantive currency in diverse areas of law, and proficiency in communication and skills. Common to each experience is my nonpartisan perspective of the law, commitment to fairness, and impartiality to all.

At the core of my legal career is a 20-year history of appellate court work. From writing cases for the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court following my first year of law school, to currently serving Judge Jeffery Carpenter at the North Carolina Court of Appeals, my passion for appellate court legal work has only deepened. Based on my extensive appellate court experience in federal and state courts, I have been asked on occasion to consider running for judicial office. When asked this time, I said yes. I consider it an honor to be asked to serve. From working in the courts, serving as in-house counsel in the private sector, and teaching, I have remained current in my knowledge of diverse areas of law. Diversity of subject matter knowledge is especially important to a judge on the Court of Appeals because the Court hears all kinds of cases—civil, criminal, business, and family—that arise from the trial courts. I am challenged by pressing legal questions that come before the Court, and motivated to resolve parties’ issues through skillful application of the law to their respective cases. I believe judicial decision-making should be apolitical. For the nine jurists I have served—four Democrats and five Republicans—my analytical and writing goals have been the same: to discern what the law says. In drafting judicial decisions, I seek not to infuse policy preferences, but rather to apply the law, as it is written, to each person’s case before the Court. Foundational to my personal life is a commitment to faith and family. Married for 37 years to my college sweetheart, we enjoy time with our four sons and their families. The integrity of the judiciary is important to me, not only for myself, but for the future North Carolina in which my children and grandchildren will live. If elected to the Court of Appeals, I will treat each person with dignity and respect, apply the rule of law fairly and equally, and stand firm against judicial activism. I will uphold the Judicial Branch Mission: “To protect and preserve the rights and liberties of all the people, as guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and North Carolina[.]” I would consider it the highest honor to serve you on the Court of Appeals, and I would sincerely appreciate your vote.

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

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

As a Christian, I believe God supplies the foundation for my faith: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8–9) Because of my faith, I strive to commit in both mind and action to God’s will in my daily life. I seek to exhibit attitudes, actions, and abilities that reflect what I think and believe. Through my attitude, I try to be gracious, gentle, and patient. In humble prayer, I want to be refined and reoriented to God’s will. Through my actions, I seek to demonstrate love for others, not only toward those who share my faith, but to all. Whether interacting with family, friends, or professional associates, whether making decisions big or small, I want to exhibit personal values to which I am committed: Integrity, Honor, and Fairness. Through my abilities, I am called to serve others. I view my home, workplace, social environments, service organizations, and houses of worship all as places in which I can demonstrate my faith through service to others. My sincere desire is for my faith foundation to undergird all that I do, and more importantly, who I am.

I serve on the Board Governance Committee and Internal Affairs Committee for Corral, "a faith-motivated nonprofit that equips adolescent girls in high-risk situations through a long-term, holistic program of equine therapy and education." In support of the board, I help review and refine human resource policy manuals, review insurance and risk management policies, consider legal issues for appropriate input and referral, and support the hiring and personnel leadership process. For Alliance Defending Freedom and mission aligned organizations, I have: (1) performed research and writing for multiple scholarly outlets, case briefs, and white papers; (2) mentored Blackstone Scholars in research and writing projects for scholarly outlets; (3) performed staffing and policy manual reviews for pregnancy centers; (4) recommended law student and new attorney applicants to ADF programs; (5) judged religious liberty moot court brief submissions; and (6) attended media screening events for question and answer sessions on behalf of ADF causes. Working with a team of attorneys on behalf of the N.C. Family Values Coalition, I contributed to briefs for pro-family case issues.