Yes. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, and Justice Alito's opinion evaluates the law using proper analytical methodologies. These methodologies were largely ignored when the Court rendered its earlier decision in Roe v. Wade, which instead addressed the abortion question using societal trends instead of legal analysis. The purpose of the judicial branch of government is to be the neutral; it is to decide cases based upon the law as it exists. Justice Scalia said it best, the Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. To paraphrase the 9th Amendment, the fact that the Constitution lists certain rights does not mean that the people do not have the other rights that are not spelled out in the constitutional text. Similarly, per the 10th Amendment, those powers that have not been reserved to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. With respect to the abortion question, this means that the question remains one reserved to the states or to the people, and is not a question to be decided by the federal government.

Disagree

In the abortion context, there may be medical reasons for this. For example, Type II osteogenesis imperfecta (most severe type of brittle bone syndrome) causes babies with this genetic condition to die in utero or shortly after birth if they survive the delivery process. Medically, that may be when a physician determines that ending a human life is necessary. Assisted suicide is not a liberty protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments, which protect against deprivation of life by the government.

Strongly Agree

Yes, as protected by the Constitution, which prohibits the government from depriving people of their life.

Agree

Religious liberty is at risk. The First Amendment protects religion and is meant to defend those with religious beliefs from having their beliefs intruded upon by others. I would select "Strongly Agree", but I feel that our rights to Free Speech and Free Association are perhaps in greater jeopardy at the present given all the silencing that is going on with conservative opinions.

Strongly Agree

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is by far our most important Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms, and to militia, enables us to protect ourselves and all of our other rights as well.

None of them. The discussion the Founding Fathers had during the Constitutional Convention make it clear that no branch of government was to be all-powerful. The checks and balances in place, along with the separation of powers doctrine, are meant to protect against that.

Uphold the Constitution.

Justice Antonin Scalia. He is credited as being the founder of originalism when it comes to constitutional interpretation, though I think our Founding Fathers had the original ideas in the first place. Founding Father James Wilson is regarded as one of the foremost constitutional authorities in American history. Justice Scalia's approach of looking at what was intended when the Constitution was written is the proper way to put the Constitution into its correct context. How better to understand what a law means than to look at what the language meant at the time it was written? This is the approach I have used throughout my practice, and I have long considered myself to be a constitutional originalist.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and prohibits the government from establishing a religion. This has been interpreted through precedent as creating a boundary between church and state such that the government does not encroach upon religion. This does not mean that the church and the state remain in separate spheres without any overlap, however. The main goal that our Founding Fathers had was to prevent the state from overtaking religion and penalizing those not conforming to the state's faith, as had happened in England.

Courts are bound to uphold the Constitution. This includes protecting religious beliefs and the free exercise of religion from intrusion by the government. It also includes preventing the government from establishing a religion, either by creating a national church or through indoctrination. When cases come before the courts involving these issues, we must be able to count on our courts to strike down laws that threaten our rights.

No. The Obergefell decision was based on social policy instead of the law. Domestic relations issues and marriage have long been exclusively handled by the states. A case I just succeeded in getting dismissed at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals involved a litigant trying to have the federal courts set aside the state court judgments awarding child custody to the other spouse, the reason being the federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to hear these cases. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage. Instead, the 10th Amendment specifically reserves to the states those powers not delegated to the United States. Thus marriage and whether it is only between a man and a woman has been and still is a right belonging to the states.

No. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based upon sex. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes. This has been reaffirmed by the Eastern District of Kentucky and, preliminarily, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in their recent decisions involving Title IX, which has the same terminology as Title VII. The term "sex" in both laws means biological sex, male and female.

Strongly Agree

Courts are bound to uphold the Constitution, first and foremost. With legislative texts, courts should evaluate whether those texts have exceeded the authority delegated to the Legislature by the Constitution. This could mean a separation of powers analysis or examining whether the legislative texts themselves are unconstitutional, depending upon context. With respect to court precedents dictating different results, it is important to remember that laws may change, and the court's role is to interpret the law as a neutral. The judicial branch of government is not intended to engage in judicial activism.

Stare decisis is a legal principle whereby courts follow precedent when deciding cases that are similar in some fashion. However, sometimes past court decisions have been decided incorrectly in the sense that the correct legal analysis has been misapplied, regardless of the conclusion reached. An incorrect analysis can have lasting effects, as we have seen with Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs decision. In other instances, sometimes the law has changed, which renders past decisions legally faulty and they will be overturned because of the change in the law.

Never.

No

I believe the single most important quality a judge should possess is the ability to listen. Everyone you meet in life knows something that you do not. From the tradesman to the CEO, everyone has different life experiences and knowledge that you do not have. They will have different perspectives and different interpretations of things. It is important to listen to these perspectives and interpretations to best understand legal arguments when deciding cases.

There is no incumbent judge in this election for the Kentucky Supreme Court. As a judicial candidate I will remain independent by continuing to interact with Kentuckians holding viewpoints across both ends of the political spectrum. I will base my decisions on the law and what the law is, not on what someone wishes the law was. Justice Scalia observed that to truly be a good judge, that person has to accept that they might not always like the conclusion they reach at the end of the legal analysis. Independence is being able to reach that conclusion on the basis of the law without interference from outside influences. That is what I have done as an arbitrator, and that is what I will continue to do as your Kentucky Supreme Court Justice.

I do not belong to any religious organizations because my faith has had a long journey. Spiritually, I find peace with the Catholic Church.

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

I changed parties in around 2016. The 2016 primary, I did vote, but do not remember with which party I was registered at that time.

No.

No.

Originalist, courtesy of Justice Scalia.

My relationship with G-d is a very intimate and personal one. I believe in prayer and in following His teachings, but I do not believe in politicizing my faith. He will lead me to where He wants me to be, and I trust in Him.

Parents should be able to provide an education for their children, public or private, and should be able to control whether their child's education includes studies in sexual "identity" or not. When education is to include a program of instruction that is not age appropriate, parents absolutely should be made aware of this to decide whether to allow their child to participate.

Strongly Disagree

A protected class is meant to be one that does not change. To have the benefit of legal protection, the trait or characteristic being protected is an immutable trait that is either difficult or impossible to change. Media demonstrates how "gender identity" is fluid, and is often not capable of definition.

If there is one thing I believe to be true about the human condition, it is that human beings are fallible. Even the worst outcomes may be paved with good intentions. Above all, remember that every person you meet in life knows something that you don't. Learn from them, work with them, and grow.

Disagree

The idea that race played a part in societal constructs after slavery was abolished is valid, because it did play a part - as did poverty and education - in American history. However, to take that view to its extremes by arguing that everything that happens in the U.S. today is racially motivated ignores the fact that it's not, and often stirs up more animosity than solving anything.