Jennifer Balido

Yes, I believe that the US Supreme Court rightly decided Dobbs v. Jackson, where it held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion. This decision righted the wrong reasoning of the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the court read into the US Constitution "zones of privacy" which were not part of the language of the constitution itself.

As I believe the subject matter of this question, physician-assisted suicide, might come before me in my capacity of a criminal district court judge, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to answer this question.

Strongly Agree

The judiciary's role after Dobbs it to interpret the laws of the individual states to enforce the will of the people.

Yes, I believe that religious liberty is under attack, and it is up to the judiciary to make sure that neither the state nor federal government attempts to enforce any law that impedes the establishment or free exercise of religion.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution does not separate church and state. It allows for our nation's religious heritage, and it protects the religious beliefs of those who seek political office today. The founders of this country and the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were fleeing religious tyranny, and they wanted to form a government that protected and promoted the establishment and free exercise of religion, not keep it out of our political lives.

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was rightly decided under the US Constitution because the civil rights of the private business cake shop owner, guaranteed by the First Amendment, were infringed by the actions of a state agency.

I believe my Lord Jesus Christ was sent to Earth to save me from my sins. My husband, Carlos, and I have been married for almost 35 years, and we are members of St. Monica Catholic Church in Dallas. My daughters were confirmed in the Catholic Church, and both attended St. Monica Catholic School. My oldest daughter attended Ursuline Academy, and my younger daughter attended Bishop Lynch Catholic High School. We have been active in the church and the school. We have taught our girls to love and obey the Lord, work hard, and be kind to others, so that they can live the life God intended them to live.

I believe that the First Amendment protects parents' rights to be in charge of their children's religious upbringing, healthcare, and education.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines, it is a protected class; however; neither the original Constitution, nor its amendments, mention gender identity. I believe that this protection is an impermissible expansion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and needs to be further litigated in court.

I have never been convicted of a felony or any misdemeanor over a class C traffic ticket.

No, I have never been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court.

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

I have voted in every general election since 1983. I have only voted in the Republican Primary.

Every day as a criminal district court judge I exercise my judicial philosophy: apply the law as written to the cases that come before me. Unfortunately, frequently someone comes before me and asks me to do something outside my authority under the guise of "you are a district judge" or "who is going to know if no one complains". My answer always is--show me in the law that I have that power or that the law allows me to do what you are asking, and I will consider it; if not, then don't ask me.

I believe that judges should apply the law in its original public meaning, with historical context showing that original public meaning; I do not believe that the law evolves over time. If the law needs to be changed, the legislature (elected by the people) should change it (if that is the will of the people). Changing a law is not the role of judges.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett best reflects my judicial philosophy. I admire her example of a brave, practicing Catholic and a jurist.

I believe that the US Supreme Court erred in its decision in Oberfell v. Hodges, and the decision to regulate same-sex marriage should be left up to the states.

Where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face, a judge should apply the law to the facts of the case before her. If the text of a constitutional provision is ambiguous, the judge should look to the framers' intent. If the text of a statute is ambiguous on a disputed issue, the judge should research the legislative intent of the statute. If the either text is silent on a disputed issue, the silence shows the intent of the framers or the legislative intent--the disputed issue was not intended to be included in the constitutional provision or statute.

Judicial restraint is applying the law as written; judicial activism is twisting the law to get to a predetermined result.

The proper role of a judge is to interpret the law as written and not decide first what you want the law to be and then write around the issue to get to the predetermined result.

No.

If precedent departs from the Constitution's text or original meaning, yes, a judge should correct the error. The judge's first question should be does this precedent follow the original text of the Constitution? If not, the judge should apply the law taking into account the constitutional text and its original meaning.

The reason burden of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" is because in a criminal case, the government is trying to take our most precious God-given rights--life and liberty. If the government is trying to take these rights, it should be held to the highest burden of proof before it can do so.

When a criminal judge is faced with an assertion of wrongful conviction, that judge must look at all the evidence to determine whether the jury's verdict should be upheld, vacated, or in some cases, modified. Only where the court finds a mistake in law or fact, and that mistake led to an unjust conviction, should a jury's decision be overturned. The case then returns to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the higher court decision. Any monetary "remedy" is civil in nature and should not be addressed by a criminal judge.

The language of the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty self-explanatory. I believe the US Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen lays out the proper framework in which to examine any challenge to a state law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. Bruen reinforced the right of a law-abiding citizen to carry a weapon without having to justify it to the government.

The legislative branch was intended to wield the most power. That intent is shown by its prominence in the layout of the branches of government in the Constitution and reflects the power of the electorate in our republic.