Ben Smith

Yes. There is no federal constitutional right to abortion. The constitution must be held to its originally meaning, and there is no explicit or implicit right to abortion in the constitution.

No. There is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. A statute prohibiting physician-assisted suicide does not implicate any constitutional rights.

Strongly Agree

Abortion laws are properly within the province of state legislatures. The judiciary is limited to rational-basis review when deciding cases of legislative prohibition or restrictions.

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government (and the states, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment), from restricting the free exercise of religious beliefs. The judiciary must guarantee this right by abrogating any law which seeks to restrict said right, unless the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest

The Establishment Clause merely prohibits Congress from making any law that would establish a religion. Nothing more.

Yes. Justice Thomas' concurrence illustrates my broader position: creation of a custom wedding cake is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Compelled speech in conflict with an individual's sincerely-held religious beliefs violates the First Amendment.

I am a Christian.

Parental rights are natural rights protected by the constitution, guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Ninth Amendment, and substantive due process. Parental rights are natural, reserved rights, rooted in common law, tradition, and history. Government interference in parental rights is only justified upon a showing of abuse, neglect, or incapacity.

No. Gender is a binary, biological, immutable characteristic in virtually all cases. Gender identity as an internal construct, independent from biology, is a modern concept, about which the constitution is silent.

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

My judicial philosophy is based on originalism and judicial restraint. Judges should decide cases based on the evidence before them and the applicable law, without regard to personal, political, or religious beliefs. This is the only philosophy that can adequately support the rule of law. Otherwise, decisions are arbitrarily based on the personal preferences of the person wearing the robe for a particular case, instead of being based on written laws that are equally applied to everyone.

The law should only be applied according to its original public meaning.

Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas best reflect my judicial philosophy.

Obergefell was not rightly decided. There is no support in the constitution for the requirement of states to recognize same-sex marriage. Marriage has traditionally and historically been understood as the union of one man and one woman. Every state recognized this throughout history, and no reasonable interpretation of "liberty" or "equal protection" would include same-sex marriage.

If clear on its face, the text must be applied as written. A judge should never resort to personal preferences or contemporary values. Instead, a judge must utilize tools to ascertain the meaning of text in its original context.

I am opposed to judicial activism. Judicial restraint, that is, following the law as written without regard for the consequences, is a judge's solemn duty.

A judge's proper role is to apply the law as written to the facts of the case.

No.

A judge is obligated to follow the original text over bad precedent. If a prior decision is clearly erroneous because it ignored or misconstrued the constitution or law's actual meaning, the past ruling should be abrogated

The Second Amendment preserves and protects the individual right to bear arms.

The branches of government are separate and equal.