Brent Coffee

The U.S. Supreme Court is correct in Dobbs that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The Court returned to the original understanding that the issue of abortion is not addressed by the federal constitution, does not confer an individual right to it returning the issue to the States.

No. The Fourteenth Amendment to our United States Constitution does not support a right to physician assisted suicide. There is a principle the Supreme Court has adopted in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment which says a claimed liberty interest must be "deeply rooted" in our nation's history and tradition. Physician assisted suicide is not "deeply rooted" in our nation's history.

Strongly Agree

Given Dobbs returned the issue of abortion to the States, it is the role of the people through the state legislature to pass regulations and laws in matters of abortion. It is the role of the judiciary to rule on those regulations that are passed into law when those matters come before the courts.

Yes, religious liberty is at stake in the United States. This has been demonstrated by various lawsuits across the nation involving claims that the free exercise of religion protected by First Amendment has been violated. It is the role of the judiciary to uphold the First Amendment in this regard when these matters come before the courts.

The Establishment Clause, as with the other Bill of Rights amendments, puts a limit on and restricts what the federal government can do, and it cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion. It calls for the government to protect the people's right to express the national religious heritage .

Yes, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution. An important distinction to be made is that the case did not regard who the business was providing a service to, but what the artist was being coerced to create.

I am a lifelong Christian. My faith informs my conscience and moral values, and my conscience is formed in light of my faith.

The upbringing of children is within the purview of parents. It is the right of the parents to choose how these issues are addressed with their children in their own homes. It is not the purview of the public education system or the government to take control of these issues and indoctrinate children.

There is nothing to indicate that gender identity is a protected class under the Constitution. It is not deeply rooted in our nation's history nor is it an immutable characteristic.

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

My judicial philosophy is an Originalist approach to the constitution and the law. This requires a respect for the original understanding of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution by the Framers or writers, and to interpret the plain language of the constitution, as well as the plain language of statutes duly passed by the legislature. My approach has been influenced by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the late Judge Robert Bork.

Judges should apply the law according to its original public meaning or understanding. The law "evolves" when the legislature passes, repeals, or amends the law or constitution via the People's elected representatives. It is not incumbent upon judges to place new meanings or "values" into statutes or the constitution. Therefore judicial restraint is required in this regard.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia. He is one of the reasons I chose to attend Ave Maria School of Law as he formulated the curriculum for the school. The late Judge Robert Bork who was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan was a faculty member of the school and brought a similar judicial originalist philosophy to the school as Justice Scalia did.

Obergfell was not decided according to the text of the Constitution.

A. Statutory text and words should be presumed to bear their ordinary meanings, especially when clear on its face and therefore are to be applied as such. B. When statutory or constitutional text is silent on a disputed issue, a judge should not approach that issue to create a new right or entitlement when one party asks. It would be for the legislature to address the issue if they see fit to do so.

Judicial restraint involves, as has been mentioned above, applying the law and the constitution according to its plain meaning, which means that the law, or rule, has a meaning independent of a judge's own personal desires as to what he or she thinks the law should be, as opposed to what it actually is. The contrary would be judicial activism (or revisionism) which involves judges adding to the constitution or laws passed by the legislature and framers of the constitution, otherwise there would be no need to have agreed legal procedures in place to amend or repeal statutes and the constitution itself. The judiciary has (or should have) the most limited role amongst the three branches of government.

The proper role of a judge is to apply or interpret the law as originally understood by the ratifiers or legislators, not to impose his or her own views on the controversy or matter before the court.

No.

Over the course of the history of Texas and the United States, courts have reversed prior decisions, in whole or in part, depending on the live controversy before them, revisiting those prior cases and decisions. When this occurs the goal is to ensure that the law and constitution is properly applied, interpreted, and followed. This is why one's judicial philosophy and approach to the law is vitally important when becoming a judge.

In Texas there is not a definition for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". We do call it a high burden, which it is clearly is, and whether this burden has been met is determined by the jury's evaluation of the evidence presented at trial. This is why jury selection at the trial court level is crucial to ensuring a fair and impartial jury is empaneled before trial commences.

The role judges play when reviewing wrongful conviction claims is to review the basis or bases of the claim and what occurred at the trial court level or the lower court. The nature of those claims will determine the proper course of action the higher court should take.

My understanding aligns with that of the Framers of our United States Constitution: they wanted citizens to have the same firearms as soldiers in the modern infantry. This was also discussed in the Federalist Papers. For example, in 1776 soldiers had muskets but today soldiers carry a fully automatic firearm, and under our Constitution such access is allowed to the People. The Second Amendment is clear: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The legislative branch was intended by the Framers to wield the most authority and has the most enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. By contrast, the judiciary was intended to be the weakest of the three branches.