Maria S. Lazar

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) held that "Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no references to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provisions, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The United States Supreme Court, in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, (1997), was an unanimous opinion in which the Court held the right to refuse medical treatment differs fundamentally from the right to receive medical assistance in dying. The Court focused upon the over 700 years in which suicide and assisting suicide has been punished or disapproved of by society. If further held that “the Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the ‘liberty’ it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint.” Id., at 719. The Court concluded by noting that “Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits the debate to continue, as it should, in a democratic society.” Id., at 735. I agree.

Choose not to answer

The judiciary is always tasked with determining what the law is. That continues even after Dobbs and courts have a duty to review the constitutionality of any law brought before them – even those concerning abortion restrictions or regulations.

Ever since our Nation was founded, all of our constitutional freedoms have been subject to attack. The judiciary’s role is, as it has always been, to uphold the Constitutions (state and federal) and to protect the rights of citizens.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It was enacted to ensure federal government neutrality in religious matters and to prohibit coercing anyone to participate in any religion. United States Supreme Court opinions have provided that it does not require a strictly secular government. See Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 597 U.S. 507 (2020). When read in context with the Free Exercise Clause, the Constitution requires the government to be neutral toward religion. Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 37 U.S. 203, 222 (1963).

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was an opinion with a limited scope (decided 7-2) that focused not on free speech issues and the tension between non-discrimination laws versus religious freedom, but was actually decided based solely on the specific facts of the case. Thus, it has limited application.

The burden of proof in a criminal case is the core concept contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which enshrine (not in those precise words) that all persons are entitled to due process of law. Because liberty (and sometime life) interests are implicated in criminal cases, it is always appropriate that this high burden of proof must be met by the State. It correlates with the American concept that all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system.

None. That is a legislative prerogative. That is the proper branch of government to determine remedies.

The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear Arms has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in multiple decisions that support the right to possess guns and to use them for traditional purposes, that require the government to demonstrate that a regulation is consistent with the nation's tradition of firearm use, and that the right -- for the purpose of self defense -- is protected from state and federal interference. See D.C. v. Heller, NY v. Bruen, and McDonald v. City of Chicago..

None of the three branches was to be atop the others. That is the entire concept behind our tri-partite government and the separation of powers doctrine. Gabler v. Crime Victims Rts. Bd., 2017 WI 67. Each branch's powers were to be kept separate from the other. Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558 (2019). Each branch has its own distinct functions and powers. There is to be a subtle balancing of shared powers. State v. Horn, 226 Wis. 2d 637 (1999). This has made our country endure.

I am an originalist with a leaning towards textualism. I believe that the Constitution is the rock upon which our republic is anchored. That means that the text of our law should always first be given the original public meaning that they had when they were drafted. The first, and best, source of interpretation is the words and phrases used by the legislature when it drafts our laws. Judges are not supposed to scrutinize documents in an effort to find a hidden intent by the drafters.

Judges are not supposed to scrutinize documents in an effort to find a hidden intent by the drafters. We should consider the language of the text, and only when it is ambiguous, should we look further. First, we should look to the rest of the statute, its heading, and surrounding statutes. Then we can go to secondary sources such as dictionaries, grammar books, and other legal documents that were written at the same time. Our laws must have a fixed or settled meaning to prevent uncertainty.

United States Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch. I respect his dedication and devotion to the law, his ability to write clear and concise opinions (both on that court and while on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals), his independent voice (that does not cater to any party or political point of view), and his written opinions on legal issues including the separation of powers, statutory interpretation, and the appropriate deference due to the administrative state.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), held, in a 5-4 decision, that both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause, guarantee the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples. The dissenting justices explained that this was an issue for state voters, not a federal court. In November, 2025, the United States Supreme Court declined the request in Davis v. Ermold to revisit the holding in Obergefell.

A. Judges are not supposed to scrutinize documents in an effort to find a hidden intent by the drafters. If the text is clear on its face, a court should go no further. B. We should consider the language of the text, and only when it is ambiguous, should we look further. First, we should look to the rest of the statute, its heading, and surrounding statutes. Then we can go to secondary sources such as dictionaries, grammar books, and other legal documents that were written at the same time. Our laws must have a fixed or settled meaning or we will invite uncertainty and leave the door open for judicial activism.

Judicial restraint is a philosophy wherein judges limit their power and discretion by complying with the separation of powers doctrine. Judicial restraint centers upon respect for precedent (stare decisis), and emphasizes that the judiciary should not be swayed by personal preferences, partisan agendas or mandates, or the whims of popular trends. A judicial activist is one who disregards these basic principles, and, instead places personal preferences, people, politics and/or political whims ahead of a judge’s duty to uphold the law. A judicial activist is one who has no qualms in legislating from the bench and inappropriately uses their power to shape policy or overturn precedent or legislative acts in order to make social changes. It is undemocratic because judges lack the accountability attributed to our elected legislative representatives and because it encroaches on the other branches of our government which threatens the balance of our tri-partite system of government.

The proper role of a judge is to act with integrity, impartiality, independence, and judicial restraint. It is to adhere to the separation of powers doctrine. It is to “say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). It is to never, never legislate from the bench. A judge’s role is to afford all litigants, regardless of who they are, a full and fair opportunity to present their case before an impartial jurist. Judges must rise above partisanship to preserve judiciary integrity.

No, in most cases.

Circuit court and court of appeals judges must follow the precedent set by State Supreme Courts. If they believe the law was incorrectly applied, their only recourse is to explain precisely that in their opinions (while still respecting the higher courts’ opinion). A state supreme court or United States Supreme Court justice is able to more fully address precedent and whether it conflicts with the Constitution (state of federal). If so, the Justice is obligated to uphold the law.

No.

No.

Did not answer

I have voted in all elections, to the best of my recollection.

My spiritual beliefs play no role in my decisions as a judge. With respect to my judicial values, I believe in honesty, integrity, and an independent judiciary that serves all citizens regardless of their beliefs—political or otherwise. The goal of justice is not to please any party, but to serve the people.

As far back as 1923, the United States Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment protects the rights of parents to control their children’s education. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Then, in 1972, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court held that Amish parents, in directing the religious upbringing of their children, were able to exempt children from high school. And, more recently, in Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the Court reaffirmed that “a government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.” The issue of parental rights and gender or sexual identity is still uncertain because the United States Supreme Court, in October, 2025, declined to hear an appeal in Lee v. Poudre School District R-1.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), the United States Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity requires an employer to intentionally treat employees differently because of their sex, and that was found to be a violation of Title VII. In essence, discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily entails, in the Court’s view, discrimination based upon sex.