David R. Shelvey
Non-Partisan | Washington
Candidate Profile
Activist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
David R. Shelvey
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2024
Election
Primary
Race
Supreme Court, Position 2
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Thomas M. Cooley School of Law, Lansing, Juris Doctor, 2012
City University of Seattle, Seattle, MBA, 2013
WORK & MILITARY
Army Reserve, E3, 1 (Honorable discharge)
AFFILIATIONS
Temple Beth El, Usher and cook, Fraternal Order of Eagles Tacoma Aeries #3
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
None
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
None
OTHER INFORMATION
David Shelvey submitted two comments to the Pierce County Supreme Court” relating to “email” and “PCLRGR (b)(6)(A)(iv) Agreeing to Service by Email.”
David Shelvey submitted a comment relating to “joinder” and “PCLSPR 94.04 FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS”
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
Dobbs v. Jackson states that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, and the authority to regulate abortion is “returned to the people and their elected representatives.” The courts do not have the authority to change the law. They can try to interpret it based on the legislature's intent. In Washington State, abortion has been legal since 1970. It is my understanding that Washington has been doing abortions for citizens of neighboring states that have laws prohibiting abortion. Even in states where abortion is illegal, women are still finding ways to get one. In my opinion, this is a ballot measure that needs to be voted on by the people, not the legislature. I will add that I believe abortion has been harming the population growth of this country.
I support a right to accelerate ending a human life.
Neutral
As a justice, I will support and uphold the law. I do not agree with suicide. However, Washington State has the Death with Dignity Act where a person with an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months may be prescribed medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. This may accelerate the ending of a human life, but it is legal.
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Neutral
As a justice, I will support and uphold the law. I have a friend who has arthritis and takes medications that stabilize her condition. If she were to get pregnant, the medication would kill her fetus. If she stops taking her meds, she will inflict irreversible harm upon herself. She will harm herself if she stops the meds, and if she does not, she will harm the fetus. This would be a challenging case to argue and rule upon in court.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States.
Agree
If a person wants to seek out and worship the Supreme Being, they should be able to do that as long as they do not harm others. People disagreeing have a constitutional right to voice their opinion, but should not bring fear by burning structures of worship down and/or writing profanities on the walls of places of gathering to worship.
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I believe that there is a Supreme Being that I am accountable to. When I die, I will find out if there is life after death, but until then, I will live my life as if there is.
What is your view of parental rights regarding the upbringing of children, specifically education and sexual "identity"?
As a divorce attorney, I have changed parenting plans gender-wise to what the child identifies themselves as. The courts I have practiced in are sensitive to these issues and will not discriminate against their choice of gender identity.
I support "gender identity" as a specially protected class. Please explain.
Neutral
The Washington State Constitution requires equal treatment of all citizens regardless of sex. This means if someone wants to identify with a different gender, others around that person disagreeing with them should not interfere with their right to choose. If the constitution is followed, there should be no need for a specially protected class.
What do you believe to be true about the human condition?
Some things in life have to be experienced rather than just explained, and each human being can connect with each other if they want to.
EQUALITY
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Agree
In Washington state, racism is embedded in case decisions. I support ending racism. The Washington Supreme Court recently reversed a case where a Native American was found guilty because he acted in a way that the treaty allowed, but the court claimed it went against public law. He was found guilty because he killed a deer for food based on the language of the treaty, which a non-native citizen was prohibited from doing.
ABOUT YOU
What, if any, church or organizations do you belong to?
A Synagogue of the Reform Judaism movement. At least once a month Jews, Christians, and Muslims meet together for prayer to end religious discrimination.
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
No.
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
No.
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else? Please explain.
A Living constitutionalist. I follow this philosophy based on the need to keep up with technology. As a perfect example, the right to unlawful searches and seizures in the 4th Amendment now extends beyond houses to vehicles because of technological changes that the court has recognized.
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Sandra Day O'Connor because she stayed the course of accepting women as equal to men and eventually proved this by being the first female justice.
Is there a separation of church and state in the Constitution? Please explain.
No. These values came later. The Consitution treats all men and women equally.
Should courts address threats to religious liberty in the United States? If so, how?
What is "religious" liberty?
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
Neutral. If same-sex marriage is not permitted, then why is it not mentioned in the Constitution?
Was Bostock v. Clayton County rightly decided under the law? Please explain.
Work and religion are two
I agree that “the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000); quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
Neutral
Children are our future. No one should be forced to go against the beliefs our forefathers wanted us to have and seek out assurances of those beliefs.
What should a judge do when legislative texts and court precedents dictate different results?
As a lawyer, we are required to follow the law and cannot change it. If citizens do not agree with the law, then change it.
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Justices need to right any past wrongs previous that court decisions have created.
When, if ever, should a judge take popular opinion or the social views of the majority into consideration?
Never.
Do you believe the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, absent changes through the amendment process of Article V?
Choose not to answer
Too vague of a question.
What do you believe is the single most important quality a judge should possess?
Listening to the citizens by hearing them express what harm they have suffered because they claim the law harming them was ill-written.
If you are an incumbent judge, describe a recent instance in which you acted to preserve your judicial independence. If you are an aspiring judge, how do you plan to remain independent if elected to the bench?
N/A
2ND AMENDMENT
The right to bear arms is fundamental and must be protected.
Agree
We, as citizens, need to protect the freedoms of the US Constitution and Its Amendments. However, Ukraine is the only country in Europe where firearms are not regulated by statute, and this did not stop an invasion. Even if citizens had to turn their guns in, refusing to do so based on the need to defend themselves from an invasion is not a viable excuse. Based on the 2nd Amendment, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to keep arms.
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
All three are to have equality.
How should the court address public health and individual freedoms in the time of a public health emergency?
Stop harm to the populati
