Sarah Beth Landau

Judicial candidates cannot answer these kinds of questions without violating the judicial ethics rules because the issues raised in Dobbs may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

As a judicial candidate, I cannot answer this question without violating the judicial ethics rules because this issue may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

Choose not to answer

As a judicial candidate, I cannot answer this question without violating the judicial ethics rules because this issue may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

The judiciary's role is to apply decisions from higher courts following Dobbs.

As a judicial candidate, I cannot answer this question without violating the judicial ethics rules because this issue may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

As a judicial candidate, I cannot answer this question without violating the judicial ethics rules because this issue may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

As a judicial candidate, I cannot answer this question without violating the judicial ethics rules because this issue may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

I was raised Jewish and follow Judiasm. I believe in God and the duty of people to make the world a better place.

As a judicial candidate, I cannot answer this question without violating the judicial ethics rules because this issue may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

As a judicial candidate, I cannot answer this question without violating the judicial ethics rules because this issue may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

No.

No.

2016 Democratic Primary 2016 General Election 2018 Democratic Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Democratic Primary 2020 General Election 2022 Democratic Primary 2022 General Election 2024 Democratic Primary 2024 General Election

I have a "first do no harm" philosophy combined with textualism.

It's complicated. I think we should apply the text before us and look to original public meaning when needed to interpret text for the first time and doing so does not produce absurd results.

I'm a big fan of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's philosophy of "get it right and keep it tight."

As a judicial candidate, I cannot answer this question without violating the judicial ethics rules because this issue may come before the Court. I can say that I will apply all cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and will uphold the rule of law.

A judge should approach the text as governing where it is clear on its face and resolves the question before the Court. Where the text does not answer the question, a judge should review other decisions facing the same question. If that does not resolve the question, the judge should use the canons of construction and approaches used in other analogous cases.

Judicial restraint is resolving the question before the court and no more, not opining on related questions or going outside the bounds of the facts and the law. Judicial activism is reaching out for a particular result when the facts or the law would militate in favor of a different result or resolving issues not before the court.

The role of the judge is to resolve disputes in a timely, correct, and transparent manner based on a thorough understanding of the facts and the law and the arguments the parties presented. It is not to step into the shoes of the advocate or do the advocate's job for them.

The answer space cuts off

Assuming the precedent binds the judge, the court must follow it. Perhaps the judge could file a concurring opinion explaining the departure and suggesting that it be remedied by a higher court. But you cannot pick and choose which precedents to follow, it undermines the rule of law.

Yes. Even with the burden of proof at beyond a reasonable doubt some innocent people are convicted. As William Blackstone famously said in his legal commentaries, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." This is a foundational principle of our legal system.

The judge should review the requested relief and determine if it is available under the law if a conviction is wrongful. Usually in criminal review of wrongful convictions, the determination is whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial, and compensatory remedies are left to civil courts.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this Second Amendment text to mean in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that an individual has the right to carry a handgun in public as well as in the home and need not show good cause or special need.

The branches are designed to be co-equal, but I have also read that they wield authority in the order they appear in the constitution, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, in that order.