Todd Frankfort

In Dobbs, the Supreme Court explained that its analysis was rooted in the text of the Constitution, and - as such - included an analysis of our Nation's history and tradition. It included a restrained approach to substantive due process. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. As an appellate court justice, I would be bound to apply - and absolutely would apply - that precedent faithfully and without regard to my own personal views on the subject.

Under current Supreme Court precedent, the federal Constitution does not recognize a right to physician-assisted suicide. In Glucksberg, the Court held that such a right is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition. The Court also ruled that it is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Based on these holdings, it is not protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court emphasized a restrained approach to substantive due process, requiring careful historical analysis before recognizing unenumerated rights. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the matter is appropriately left to the states. As a judicial candidate, I am bound to follow controlling precedent and to decide cases based on the Constitution, applicable law, and the record before the court - WITHOUT regard to personal views on matters of public policy.

Choose not to answer

As a judicial candidate, it would be inappropriate for me to express agreement or disagreement with a broad policy statement that could come before me on the court. Questions regarding the legal protection of human life are addressed by constitutional text, statutes, and binding precedent. If elected, I would decide any such case based solely on the Texas law, precedent from the Supreme Court of Texas, the US Supreme Court, and the record before me - without regard to my personal views.

A judge's duty is to apply the law as written - not to make policy. My judicial philosophy is grounded in fidelity to the constitutional and statutory TEXT, respect for precedent, and a restrained approach consistent with the proper role of the judiciary. If elected, I will be bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Texas and of the United States Supreme Court, and will decide each case based on the governing law and the record before the court, without regard to personal views or political considerations.

Religious liberty is a foundational constitutional right. The judiciary's proper role is to faithfully enforce the Free Exercise Clause and ensure that individuals and institutions are not improperly burdened for acting in accordance with sincerely held religious beliefs - consistent with precedent. My duty would be to apply these constitutional protections as written and interpreted by higher courts, based on the facts and record before the court.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or coercing religious belief, but the government is not required to be hostile towards religion nor is it required to obliterate our Nation's religious heritage or foundation from the public sphere. As an appellate justice, I would follow the fact-specific, historically informed analysis faithfully based upon the facts and governing law of the case.

In Masterpiece, the US Supreme Court focused on the text and protections of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, and held that the state cannot enforce its laws in a manner that shows hostility towards religion. The Court emphasized that laws must be applied with religious nerurality and with respect for sincerely held religious beliefs. As an appellate justice, my role would be to apply that constitutional principle as articulated by the US Supreme Court, based on the facts and record, without regard to personal views or policy preferences.

My faith emphasizes personal responsibility, justice, humility, and respect for the dignity of each person. I deeply value the Constitution's protections for religious liberty and the freedom to live according to one's beliefs without government hostility. While my faith informs my character, as a judge, I would be committed to applying the law fairly and impartially to all - without favor or bias.

As a family lawyer, I know that the Constitution and the applicable statutes protect the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and care of their children; however, that right is not unlimited. Decisions involving minors that may carry permanent and irreversible consequences raise serious concerns and implicate the State's longstanding interest in protecting children. These difficult questions are best addressed through constitutional text, legislative judgment, and binding precedent.

The Constitution does not expressly identify gender identity as a protected class. Questions regarding protected classifications arise from the constitutional text and the controlling case law precedent interpreting the Equal Protection Clause. I would be bound to faithfully base decisions upon that precedent and the facts of the case at hand.

No.

No.

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

My judicial philosophy is grounded in fidelity to the constitutional and statutory text, respect for precedent, and a restrained approach consistent with the proper role of the judiciary. If elected, I will be bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Texas and of the United States Supreme Court, and will decide each case based on the governing law and the record before the court, without regard to personal views or political considerations.

Judges should primarily apply the law according to its text and original public meaning, while faithfully following binding precedent. Changes in law and policy are properly made by the people through the Legislature - NOT by courts updating the law to reflect "contemporary values."

Justice Scalia emphasized fidelity to constitutional text and original public meaning, while consistently warning against judges substituting their personal policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the people. His commitment to judicial restraint, separation of powers, and equal application of of the law are characteristics to which I aspire.

In Obergefell, the Supreme Court relied upon the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to recognize the right to same-sex marriage. The Constitution does not expressly address marriage, and the Court's analysis did not rest on constitutional text alone, but - rather - on broader principles of due process and evolving understandings of liberty. That approach reflects a methodology that looks beyond the text itself to recognize rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. While, as an appellate justice, my personal views on the matter would not come into play.

When constitutional or statutory text is clear, a judge should apply it as written. When the text is ambiguous, a judge should consider interpretive tools, context, history, and binding precedent. When it is silent, a judge should proceed with restraint so as to avoid creating new policy. This way, such decisions are left to the Legislature, unless higher court precedent requires otherwise.

Judicial restraint = applying the law as written and interpreted by binding precedent, while respecting the limits of a judge's role and the separation of powers. Judicial activism = when a court departs from text and precedent to reach a preferred public policy outcome. Judicial restraint respects the constitutional role of the legislature as the lawmaking body.

My judicial philosophy is grounded in fidelity to the constitutional and statutory TEXT, respect for precedent, and a restrained approach consistent with the proper role of the judiciary. If elected, I will be bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Texas and of the United States Supreme Court, and will decide each case based on the governing law and the record before the court, without regard to personal views or political considerations.

No. Apply the text.

Judges are bound by stare decisis and the existing court structure. An intermediate appellate court justice must follow binding precedent from higher courts, even if there are arguments that a decision departed from the Constitution's text or original meaning. Making corrections is up to the Supreme Court of Texas and the US Supreme Court.

The 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. As a Texas gun owner, I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. The 2nd Amendment should be applied according to its text and precedent.

Our government was set up so that no single branch would hold the most unchecked power. I believe the legislative branch - the one closest to the people - was intended to wield the most, though. The role of judges is to interpret and apply the laws the legislature enacts, consistent with the Constitution and binding precedent.