Cory Liu

Yes, Dobbs was rightly decided. The doctrine of substantive due process had no textual basis in the Constitution and served as an excuse for willful judges to interject the courts into moral issues that should have been resolved through the democratic process.

No, the federal Constitution does not provide a right to physician assisted suicide. Again, substantive due process was a capacious doctrine that invited willful judges to interject courts into moral issues that should have been resolved through the democratic process. Washington v. Glucksberg correctly declined to recognize a constitutional substantive due process right to assisted suicide.

Strongly Agree

The judiciary's role is to faithfully apply the laws passed by the legislature.

Yes, the founders adopted the First Amendment because they knew that religious liberty could always be at risk. The judiciary can protect religious liberty by appropriately enforcing constitutional and statutory protections for religious exercise, such as the Free Exercise Clause, RLUIPA, and similar laws that exist at the state level.

Our nation's religious heritage is consistent with the Establishment Clause. Willful judges in the 1960's and 70's improperly used the Establishment Clause to make rulings so hostile to religion that in many ways, religious expression was treated worse than secular forms of expression.

Yes. It was clear from the facts of the case that many forces were conspiring against the baker Jack Phillips to prevent him from living according to his conscience.

I was born in a secular culture, but later came to believe in divinity and became a Christian. I believe in natural law, which posits that there are universal moral truths that are ascertainable by all people, even those who may not identify with a particular faith tradition.

Parents have a right to raise their children in accordance with their values. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this in the recent case of Mahmoud v. Taylor.

No. Gender identity is not an immutable characteristic.

No.

No.

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

Judges should exercise restraint and apply the law faithfully and dispassionately. When forced to make difficult decisions, judges should act according to their conscience rather than public opinion.

Judges should primarily apply the law according to its originally public meaning.

Justice Clarence Thomas. I admire his willingness to reexamine precedents and speak his views boldly.

No. In that case, the Supreme Court once again invoked a capacious view of "due process" to inject itself into a contested political issue that should have been left to the democratic process.

The judge should follow the text when it is clear. When the text is ambiguous, the judge should apply the various techniques of statutory interpretation that exist to resolve the ambiguity in a way that is consistent with the rest of the laws.

I view judicial restraint as hesitating to--and generally preferring not to--inject courts into contested political issues so that they may be resolved through the democratic process. I strive to model judicial restraint. I view judicial activism as judges seizing on flimsy legal pretexts to weigh in on contested political issues in order to impose their will and preferences on society. Judicial activism should be avoided.

The role of the judge is to be a diligent, hardworking, and impartial listener and reader, and to decide cases in a consistent manner in accordance with the law.

Potentially

A lower court judge will need to follow precedent out of respect for the hierarchy of the court system. A Supreme Court Justice should strive to correct erroneous precedents.

The burden of proof for criminal cases is a longstanding tradition that I respect and value. It's a burden that prosecutors meet in courtrooms across the country every week.

Judges should follow the appropriate statutes and precedents that place limits on post-conviction review.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The legislative branch.