Strongly Agree

I have written nearly 400 appellate briefs, and before that I worked at the Court of Criminal Appeals for two years helping to draft opinions, and I have never consulted legislative history to interpret a statute. That's because what matters is the actual words that the Legislature passed, not the meaning a staffer gave them in a committee report.

Clarence Thomas. He is an originalist, and when interpreting the constitution he is willing to overrule precedent in order to abide by the original meaning. If a judge values precedent over the original meaning of the constitution, he is placing the precedent above the constitution.

It is the duty of our courts to stay calm in the face of panics and ensure that the political branches of government abide by the constitution. Our rights do not disappear because the world is a dangerous place.

I believe Justice Alito's dissent in that case accurately reflected the original meaning of the statute.

As a state court judge I will be obliged to follow the edicts of the federal Supreme Court on this matter. Personally I do not believe courts have a role to play in this unless someone's rights are actually being violated.

Strongly Agree

A judge on a high court--like the one I'm running for--should overturn precedent that conflicts with the original meaning of the constitution. If the court abides by precedent that conflicts with the constitution, it is placing the precedent above the constitution. That's an inversion of a the proper order.

I will look to the original public meaning of the constitution. That is: What would someone who voted to adopt the constitution think its words meant at the time. For instance, the constitution does not explicitly say a defendant has a right to present a defense at trial. But the constitution guarantees "due process," and at the time of the Fifth Amendment was adopted "due process" included an opportunity to present a defense. By limiting the constitution to what it meant at the time it was adopted, judges are doing nothing more than interpreting the law. When they make up rights that were not included at the time of adoption, they are legislating from the bench.

This is not a matter that would appear in front of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Situations where children use the court system to go around the wishes of their parents should be extraordinarily rare, and perhaps nonexistent outside the context of abuse.

It should consider whether the voters who adopted the relevant constitutional provision would have believed it protected such a right. I have never seen anything indicating the Texas constitution protects a right to assisted suicide.

I am an originalist. I abide by the original public meaning of the constitution.

No.

I've been an appellate prosecutor for nine and a half years, during which time I've been lead counsel on nearly three hundred cases, including sixteen cases in the Court of Criminal Appeals. This vast body of experience has helped me learn about nearly every area of the law that comes up in criminal appeals. I'm Board Certified in Criminal Appellate Law. I graduated from the University of Texas at Austin School of Law with honors. Before my current job I worked at the Court of Criminal Appeals for two years as a clerk to Judge Paul Womack. Judge Womack had himself worked as a clerk at the court thirty years earlier. I learned a great deal from him in terms of legal history, the history of the court, and the way the court functions.

We have a backlog at every level of the criminal justice system right now. Routine appeals take years to resolve. For nine and a half years I've been the most productive appellate prosecutor in Harris County--probably the state. I process cases quickly, and because of my experience at the court I know I can write opinions quickly. My opponent, Judge Walker, has been the least productive judge in the recorded history of the court, averaging a mere 3.6 opinions per year over his first five years. When I worked at the court my judge wrote 17 opinions one year and 20 the next. I will get the court moving again. I am a career prosecutor and I will be a law-and-order judge. This is why I'm endorsed by leading law enforcement groups. I will ensure that we protect defendants' rights, but I will not use the court to create new ones. My opponent, Judge Walker, is the judge on the court who most often votes with defendants. Some of his opinions have either created new rights for defendants or advocated creating new rights.

Strongly Disagree

Agree

I am a conservative Christian. My beliefs are summarized in the Apostle's creed.

None. My skills are entirely in the criminal law and I am a prosecutor, meaning there are few opportunities for pro bono work.