Strongly Agree

The problem with the "Living Constitution" is that it always seems to evolve in ways that line up with the judge's preferences. Originalists like me insist that courts are bound by the provisions of the federal and state constitutions as they were understood at the time of ratification. When constitutional changes are necessary or desirable, the people can make them through the amendment process. Courts have no authority to amend our constitutions through judicial decisions.

When interpreting a statute, a court's main goal should be to identify the intent of the legislature that passed the statute. Ordinarily, when the text of the statute is clear, the court has no reason to consult the legislative history. It must follow the plain meaning of the statute. When the statutory text is unclear, the court may examine the statute's legislative history in an effort to determine what the legislature had in mind.

Justice Antonin Scalia, with Justice Clarence Thomas a close second.

Pandemics can present policy makers with enormous public health and economic challenges. The primary responsibility for addressing those challenges rests with the legislative and executive branches, not with the courts. Judges should respect the role of the legislative and executive branches in pandemic response, but they should also be willing to strike down measures that violate constitutional rights. Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, NC's Governor issued an executive order that included a ban on most indoor worship services. After several churches filed a lawsuit challenging the ban's constitutionality, a federal court issued an order prohibiting enforcement of the ban.

I find the reasoning in Justice Alito's dissent persuasive.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US Constitution. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does prohibit Congress from enacting any laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" The US Supreme Court has ruled that both of these provisions -- commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause -- also apply to state and local governments. It is important to remember that the overall purpose of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is to promote, not restrict, religious liberty. The Establishment Clause achieves this goal by preventing the government from expressly or effectively designating an official church or religion at the expense of others. The government may not, for example, require the public to attend worship services or use tax dollars to pay the ministers of a particular church or religion. The Free Exercise Clause promotes religious liberty by, at a minimum, preventing the government from enacting and enforcing laws that target specific religious practices, religions, or denominations. For instance, the government may not force a church to ordain both men and women as ministers if the church teaches that the ordained ministry is limited to a particular gender. The courts must uphold all of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and similar provisions in the NC Constitution. When presented with a government action that clearly violates the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause, a judge must strike down the action.

Strongly Agree

Like Justice Scalia, I think that judges should consider several factors when they are asked to reject a prior decision's interpretation of the law. These factors include (1) whether the prior decision is well-reasoned and (2) the extent to which the government and the people have come to rely on the prior decision. If the prior court decision involves the interpretation of a constitutional provision, judges should pay special attention to how well the interpretation agrees with the original understanding of the provision at issue.

Judges have no authority to create rights. In some cases, parties will argue that rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are protected by the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment or by the Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. When confronted with such a claim, the court should look to the original understanding of the constitutional provision(s) at issue. If an alleged right falls outside the original understanding, the court should not read it into the Constitution.

The courts have long recognized that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to the care, custody, and control of their minor children. This right is likely to be raised in any lawsuit challenging government measures that allow minor children to consent to medical procedures or drugs without a parent's permission.

In a lawsuit alleging a right to assisted suicide under the NC Constitution, the court should examine the text of any provision cited in support of such a right. If the text does not reference the right -- and there is no mention of assisted suicide in our state constitution -- the court should examine whether the text was understood to encompass a right to assisted suicide at the time of ratification.

As explained in responses to previous questions, my judicial philosophy is originalist. In other words, I think that judges are bound by the text of the Constitution as it was understood at the time of ratification.

The NC Supreme Court hears an incredibly wide range of cases involving important legal issues. Justices need the kind of broad legal experience that I have accumulated since graduating from law school nearly 22 years ago. I served more than four years in the US Marine Corps, advising commanding generals and subordinate commanders on military justice and operational law matters, prosecuting violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and assisting fellow Marines with personal legal issues. After being honorably discharged, I completed a clerkship with Justice (now Chief Justice) Paul Newby of the NC Supreme Court, which gave me an insider's view of how the court works. I then practiced law and became a partner at a major law firm in Raleigh, where I successfully litigated constitutional and other cases in federal and state trial courts and appellate courts, including the NC Supreme Court. In 2013 I joined the faculty at UNC Chapel Hill, where I earned tenure and a distinguished term professorship for my research, writing, and teaching on aspects of NC law. Following Paul Newby's installation as Chief Justice in January 2021, I was appointed General Counsel for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts. As the top lawyer for our court system, I provide legal guidance to judges, clerks of court, and magistrates throughout the state.

First, I have the right judicial philosophy. Many people have lost faith in the judiciary because they believe that courts ignore or distort the law to reach whatever outcomes the judges happen to desire. If elected, I will be guided by the text and original understanding of the Constitution in cases that raise constitutional issues. I will also faithfully interpret statutes based on their text and the intent of the legislature. I will try always to remember that judges are the servants, not the masters, of the law. Second, as explained in my answer to the previous question, I have broad legal experience. In particular, as someone who has previously worked at the NC Supreme Court and who currently serves as the top lawyer for our court system, I will be able to hit the ground running as a new justice.

Did not answer

Strongly Disagree

I believe that justice should be blind. This value is threatened if judges simply assume that criminal defendants belonging to certain racial groups are victims of an unjust criminal justice system. Such an assumption could itself lead to unfairness by prompting judges to treat defendants differently based on race. No one should be advantaged or disadvantaged in court by their skin color. Judges should faithfully apply the law to the facts in every case without favoritism.

Strongly Agree

According to John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Our system assumes that most people accept the Judeo-Christian values of justice, honesty, self-restraint, and concern for others. As John Adams also wrote, "We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by . . . morality and Religion."

I am a committed but admittedly imperfect Christian. I believe that God is just but also full of mercy and that he wants everyone to come to know him through his Son Jesus Christ. I believe that we must have the courage to stand up for what is right but that we should do so without bitterness or self-righteousness. I believe that, in our personal lives, we should be slow to condemn and quick to forgive. I believe that God expects us to help those in need and that we should do so cheerfully, grateful for the many blessings that we have received.

Over the years I have helped many people resolve personal legal issues at no charge. I have rarely, if ever, claimed credit for those efforts.