Michael D. Warren Jr.

I agree with the Supreme Court that the original historical understanding of the federal Constitution left this issue to the States. To fulfill their role, courts must interpret the law as originally understood by the People (in the case of the Constitution) or the Legislature (in the case of statutory construction). With regard to the Constitution, this is so because the fundamental charter "is made for the people and by the people . . ." Traverse City School Dist v Attorney General, 384 Mich 390, 405 (1971). As Justice Cooley reflected, "Constitutions do not change with the varying tides of public opinion and desire; the will of the people therein recorded is the same inflexible law until changed by their own deliberative action ... They must construe them as the people did in their adoption, if the means of arriving at that construction are within their power." In short, judges should not legislate from the bench, but apply the law as adopted by the lawmakers.

I agree with the Supreme Court that the original historical understanding of the federal Constitution left this issue to the States. John Adams explained the Founders' sentiments when he wrote that good government and the very definition of a republic "is an empire of laws." The First Principle of the rule of law is indispensable to maintaining our unalienable rights, limited government, equality, and the Social Compact. Courts must exercise self-restraint to avoid the temptation of revising, “correcting,” or implementing policies the People or Legislature have not enacted. "The courts," Alexander Hamilton explained, "must declare the sense of the law, and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body." Such an exercise is a violation of the separation of powers and usurpation of the lawmaking authority of the People and Legislature.

Neutral

I have been endorsed by Right to Life. However, the role of the Court is not to make policy, and I am bound by the Constitution and the law enacted by the Legislature. My personal views must be set aside when considering such issues.

The Court's role is to provide a fair and impartial interpretation of the law as adopted by the People in the Constitution and the Legislature in enacting Legislation. Therefore, I am as conservative or liberal, progressive or libertarian as the law actually is. The People have recently enacted a sweeping protection of the right to abortion in the Michigan Constitution, and the Court is required to fairly interpret that law.

Yes. There is a growing hostility to people of faith across America, both culturally and legally. Religious liberty is the first, most important unalienable right because, as James Madison reflected, "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe..." The courts must be vigilant and robust defender of religious liberty in the face of religious persecution and hostility; protecting religion is paramount.

The Establishment Clause prohibits (1) the government from dominating religion and (2) religion from dominating government. There can be no official church, and there can be no favoritism or hostility towards one or more religions, or religion in general. Laws should be neutral in connection with faith. However, this does not mean that support of institutions that happen to be religious should be prohibited (such as churches conducting charity work) so long as the support is neutral in its application. Religious organizations should not be discriminated against simply because of the faith-based nature of the institution. The Declaration of Independence refers to the "Creator," the "Supreme Judge of the World," "the Laws of Nature," and "Nature's Law." Recognizing our fundamental foundations falls well within the First Amendment. See my book, The Revolutionary Words that Forged America - The Definitive Guide to the Declaration of Independence (Republic Books 2026), for more.

I agree with the Supreme Court that the persecution and overt hostility against people of faith are exactly what the Free Exercise Clause is intended to prevent. Laws, policies, or administrative actions that target religious activities and beliefs should generally be struck down as violating the compelling state interest test. As a law clerk for Justice Dorothy Comstock Riley, I helped work on the Michigan Supreme Court's landmark case of People v. DeJonge, 442 Mich 266 (1993), which struck down state teacher certification requirements that required parents who homeschooled their children to be certified teachers. The law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when applied to families who had sincerely held religious beliefs that they were their children's primary educators.

I was raised as a nothing and was originally an atheist. I became an agnostic in high school. I converted to Catholicism as an adult in law school, in all places, in Ann Arbor.

I agree with the Supreme Court that parents have a fundamental unalienable right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. See Myer v Nebraska (1923), Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925), Wisconsin v Yoder (1972), and Mahmoud v Taylor (2025).

I would need to do more research on this issue to have a definitive answer. I am unaware of any precedent addressing this issue.

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

Courts must interpret the law as originally understood by the people (in the case of the Constitution) or the legislature (in the case of statutory construction). See, e.g., Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p 55 ("[t]he object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give meaning to the intent of the people adopting it").

As Justice Cooley reflected, "Constitutions do not change with the varying tides of public opinion and desire; the will of the people therein recorded is the same inflexible law until changed by their own deliberative action ... They must construe them as the people did in their adoption, if the means of arriving at that construction are within their power." Bay City v State Treasurer, 23 Mich 499, 506 (1871). In other words, judges should not legislate from the bench.

Justice Antonin Scalia

Did not answer

A judge should apply the clear constitutional and statutory text without adding or striking anything from the text. If the text is ambiguous, the judge should consider precedent and the historical circumstances surrounding its adoption. Judges should be wary of stretching or adding rights or duties when the text is silent.

Self-restraint is the key to being an excellent judge. Judges must set aside their personal desires and wishes; and simply apply the law as intended by the lawgiver (either the People or the Legislature). Although a judge may disagree with a policy or believe that he or she has a better approach to solving an issue, that is not the role of the judiciary. If someone wishes to change policy, they should run for the legislative branch. Judicial activism is abandoning self-restraint and creating law based on the personal desires of the judges.

To ensure justice to the greatest extent possible in a way that is true to the intentions of the lawmakers. In addition, judges should apply the law neutrally to the parties before them, without unfairly favoring one side or the other. Judges are the guardians of the rule of law and protect our unalienable rights, but within a framework of self-restraint and fidelity to the law.

No.

As a lower court judge, you are required to follow the precedent. As a Supreme Court Justice, precedent is binding under most circumstances, but when it is obvious that a prior decision was the result of judicial activism unanchored in the Constitution, then the Supreme Court should seriously consider reversing the poor decision. For example, Brown v Board of Education reversed the terrible decision that upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine despite the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

The burden of proof is a fundamental safeguard of our unalienable rights and integral to the protection of liberty and freedom, and a hedge against government tyranny that is deeply embedded in the constitutional right of due process of law.

Judges have a duty to set aside any wrongful convictions when a criminal defendant is able to establish a wrongful conviction.

As the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v Heller, the right to bear arms is a fundamental, individual right. This right enables self-defense (and defense of others) and serves as a crucial safeguard against government tyranny.

The Legislative branch.