Mark Anthony Hanni

Yes. Dobbs was rightly decided. The Constitution does not say anything about a right to abortion, and judges should not invent rights that aren’t in the text. And as a Catholic, I believe strongly in the dignity of every human life and the duty to protect the unborn.

No. The Constitution does not create a right to physician-assisted suicide. In Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), the Supreme Court unanimously held that assisted suicide is not a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment. And as a Catholic, I believe every human life has dignity and should be protected, especially the elderly and vulnerable.

Strongly Agree

Life should be protected from the womb to the tomb.

Judicial canons prevent me from prejudging any case. A judge has to look at the facts and follow the Constitution. But I can say this: it is my personal belief that legislators should not pass laws that violate the right to life. And judges should uphold the Constitution’s protection of human life, especially for the unborn. That is my personal philosophy, and any real case would still be decided properly - based on the law, the record, and my oath.

Yes. I do think religious liberty is at risk. More and more, people of faith are being pressured or punished for living out their beliefs. The job of the judiciary is to make sure the government follows the First Amendment and doesn’t trample on anyone’s right to practice their faith. Judges should step in when the government treats religious people unfairly and protect the free exercise of religion the Constitution promises.

No, the Establishment Clause doesn’t make the government strictly secular. It just means the government can’t force you into a state religion. It still allows our country to acknowledge its religious roots and let people show their faith in public. The Founders talked about God all the time, and nothing in the Constitution says we have to pretend religion doesn’t exist.

Yes. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided correctly. The government is not allowed to attack someone just because they are religious. In this case, the state treated a Christian baker with obvious hostility, and that violates the First Amendment. The Court was right to say you can enforce laws, but you can’t be biased against people of faith while doing it.

I'd rather release several guilty people for lack of sufficient evidence than wrongfully incarcerate a single innocent person. Liberty is right next to life in our Constitutional guarantees. A wrongfully incarcerated person can never get their time back.

Judges should make it right when someone was wrongfully convicted. If the evidence shows a person is innocent or their rights were violated, the judge should step in, fix the mistake, and order the proper remedy - whether that means a new trial, throwing out bad evidence, or overturning the conviction, and even awarding damages. The justice system must correct its errors. Protecting the innocent is one of a judge’s most serious duties.

The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for protection against tyranny, foreign threats, and basic self-defense for ourselves and our families. This is a core constitutional right. At the same time, people who carry firearms should be properly vetted so that responsible citizens can exercise this right safely.

I think the judicial branch has the most important kind of authority - the authority to say “no.” Judges don’t make laws or run the government, but they stop the other branches when they break the Constitution.

A judge must follow the law and not legislate from the bench. Our life experience and moral character will always shape how we see the world, but justice has to stay fair. Lady Justice is blind for a reason - every person should stand on a level playing field. Money, power, or influence should never control the courtroom. My job is to follow the Constitution and the law as written, and treat every case with honesty and fairness.

Judges should follow the original meaning of the Constitution. Its general principles, like freedom, life, and limits on government, don’t change. They apply to everybody forever. But the way we apply those principles can look different depending on the situation. A judge shouldn’t rewrite the Constitution to fit modern trends. The judge should just take these original principles and apply them fairly to whatever facts come up today.

I would say Justice Antonin Scalia best reflects my judicial philosophy. He believed in following the Constitution’s original meaning, not rewriting it. He stuck to the text, respected the separation of powers, and wasn’t afraid to say exactly what the law actually says. That’s the approach I believe judges should take - be honest, be consistent, and follow the Constitution as it was written.

No. Obergefell was not rightly decided. The Constitution never mentions marriage, so the Court had no business creating a right to same-sex marriage out of the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. Judges shouldn’t invent rights that aren’t in the text. A marriage is and has always been between man and woman. And personally, I don’t believe marriage should be decided by the government at all - it’s a religious sacrament that belongs to the church, not the state.

A. If the text is clear and Constitutional, the judge should follow it - period. No guessing, no adding, no subtracting. B. If the text is truly ambiguous or silent, and the judge cannot apply it without basically rewriting the law, then the judge should not try to fix it. The judge should strike it down for being unworkable or unconstitutional, and then it’s up to the legislature to write a clearer statute. Judges interpret the law - they don’t repair it.

Judicial restraint means a judge stays in their lane. The judge follows the law as it is written and doesn’t try to change it. They don’t add things, don’t take things away, and don’t push their own opinions from the bench. Judicial activism is when judges do the opposite. They make up new rules, twist the Constitution to get the result they want, or act like lawmakers instead of judges.

The proper role of a judge is simple: listen to the evidence, look at the facts, and apply the law as it is written.

No.

A judge should correct the error. If a precedent goes against the Constitution’s text or original meaning, then it’s the precedent that’s wrong, not the Constitution.

No.

No.

2016 Democratic 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

Prior to 2016 I was historically a Conservative Democrat. Then the party left me. I was pro-union and pro-worker, and I have always been pro-life. I am also a lifetime NRA member. I voted for Trump in the 2016 General Election and have voted Republican ever since.

I am Catholic, but more importantly a Christian. I believe Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that God sent Him here to be sacrificed for the sins of humanity, and that the Holy Spirit guides us to do God’s will. I believe in the Holy Trinity. I attend Mass daily, and I try to live out my faith every day through prayer, repentance, and service to others. My goal is to follow Christ as best I can and let His teachings shape my family, my work, and my decisions.

Parents have the main right to raise their own kids. The Constitution makes it clear that parents - not the government - decide how their children are taught, including on education, morals, and issues like sex and identity. Schools should teach real subjects, not indoctrinate kids or hide things from parents. Families set the values for their children, and the government should respect that.

No. Gender identity is not a protected class in the Constitution. The Constitution never mentions it, and judges should apply the text as written. Every person deserves equal treatment under the law, but the Equal Protection Clause does not create special categories that aren’t there.