The US Supreme Court held that the issue of abortion was not expressly addressed in the US Constitution and is therefore a matter reserved to the states. This is the law of the land, and we are now seeing the issue playing out in legislative and judicial processes in the various states. This includes Montana.

Choose not to answer

This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.

Choose not to answer

This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.

Choose not to answer

This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.

Strongly Agree

As a state judge, the federal constitutional issues are less likely to be in my caseload.

From the federal point of view, it is commonly accepted that the legislative branch was designed to be the most powerful. But power has migrated over time to the executive. In Montana, our system seems designed to give more power to the executive. We have a part time citizen legislature. My goal is to focus on keeping the judicial branch within its proper role and authority.

Need more space.

Past: US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Current: Justice Neil Gorsuch or Justice Amy Coney Barrett

The US Constitution First Amendment outlaws any governmental restriction on the free exercise of religion. And it prohibits the governmental establishment of religion. The Montana Constitution has similar strictures. The point is that we have freedom of worship in this country, and the government cannot support one religion over another, and cannot tell us how or who to worship.

There is clearly a mechanism for anyone with proper standing to sue in a court of competent jurisdiction against a threat to religious liberty. If someone brings such a claim, the court should entertain the suit and address the threat.

According to the Supreme Court, its decision was properly decided per the US Constitution. It is a binding precedent for all lower courts that have a similar case or issue.

Answer needs more space.

Agree

There are problems with this case. There is not a clear majority for the holding, and Justice Thomas pointed out the Court did not establish a standard of scrutiny. The other odd issue is Justice Scalia finding no fundamental right to parent in the US Constitution. Why is that? Because that is a state law issue, properly left to states under our system of federalism. I agree with the excerpt above. But the case likely requires revisiting in the US Supreme Court to get a majority opinion.

This is an odd question. One reason a prior precedent may differ from a statute is because the statute has been amended since the prior case. In that case, the newly amended statute generally controls unless there are other factors at play. The other instance may be because a prior precedent is based on a Constitutional issue, and the legislation may be written contrary to the Constitution. That requires careful parsing to properly interpret. In any event, the judge must follow both issues back to the source to properly understand why they differ, what each means, and then reach an interpretation based on sound interpretive principles.

There is an extensive body of case law at both the state and federal level on this, and there is a great deal of disagreement on this issue. The most important question is whether events or facts have changed to require a new look at the precedent. Was it wrong at the time it was decided? Is it wrong now based on subsequent events? In no event should a judge overturn a prior precedent because of dislike or personal viewpoint or preference. It should only be based upon sound Constitutional principles, fundamentals of interpretation, and proper understanding of events or factors which have changed since the original decision.

Law passed = majority

No

No the Constitution’s meaning does not change over time. We just have more opportunities to understand how its meaning plays out in our lives.

Constant desire to learn and improve. We all make mistakes and we all confront new issues and challenges. A good judge should be always learning, always improving. Every day, the people who come to court expert and deserve a fair and impartial judge who will give them his or her very best.

How to remain independent? First, don’t read the newspapers to see all the criticism of your rulings. Second, remember the appellate court should focus on answering questions of law, not deciding case outcomes. That means getting the interpretation right is more important than picking winners or losers in individual cases. The long term integrity of the law is more important than making any supporter or opponent happy or unhappy.

I have been involved in ministry leadership since campus ministry in college. My wife and I are on the leadership team of a non-denominational Christian church. I have taken a leave of absence from active leadership due to the demands of the campaign.

2014 Republican Primary 2014 General Election 2016 Republican Primary 2016 General Election 2018 Republican Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election 2022 General Election

I was deployed overseas with the US Army and failed to complete my ballot on time for the 2022 primary campaign. Keep in mind just because I have been a life long Republican, I will not give any Republican litigants or causes any special consideration if they come before me in a future case. Judges must be nonpartisan and fair in the decisions. I won’t lose a moment of sleep if I correctly decide a case contrary to a Republican litigant or cause, so long as they lose fairly on the merits.

No

No

I adhere to the textualist view of interpretation as explained and championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. It is simply a commitment to interpreting any instrument - contract, deed, will, statute, constitution - according to its mean as written in the text. This is akin to originalism. But keep in mind the Montana Constitution dates back only to 1972. A quest for original meaning for that document is different from examining 1787-89 for the US Constitution.

I was raised in a traditional Christian home with loving parents. I am married with children and we try to raise our children in the same way. We believe in the Bible and adhere to the Christian faith. The challenge in any position of public trust is to ensure we discharge our duties based upon the law and Constitution, and also based upon who we are as a person. Any public servant, particularly a judge, must ensure his or her personal views do not distort the public duty.

I believe parents have a fundamental right and duty to care for and raise their children as they believe is right. There are a number of contentious issues currently in litigation or likely headed toward litigation that include rights of parents and minor children RE: education, sexual identity, and care and neglect. If any of these issues come before me as a Supreme Court justice, the most important issue for my legal opinion is the meaning of the law and Constitution, not my personal beliefs.

Choose not to answer

This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.

Human beings are a mess. They always have been since the beginning, and they will be until the end. I put my trust in God’s grace and redemption.

Choose not to answer

This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.