As a judge, what do you believe the goals of the criminal justice system should be?
First and foremost, the criminal justice system should protect the rights of victims and keep our communities safe while also ensuring due process of law for those charged with criminal offenses. The goals of the criminal justice system are punishment, deterrence (protect society from further unlawful acts), incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
The criminal justice system includes every aspect of a crime, including arrest, prosecution, court determinations, sentencing outcomes, correction, and court appeals.
What Texas State court decision do you think has most impacted society? How and Why?
The case of Roe v. Wade was a Texas case that was ultimately heard by the United State Supreme Court. This case is the most significant Texas case in history in Texas and US legal history.
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because substantive due process was used to declare a right to abortion. Substantive due process is a term used by judicial activists to base their opinions on and has no basis in the Constitution. Unfortunately, substantive due process has become a legal theory that has been cited in more than 100 cases since Roe v. Wade. It is a slippery slope that undermines the sacred Constitution of the United States. The liberal Justice Douglas was so right when he described the due process clause as “the wildcard to be put to use as the judges choose.” This undermines the separation of powers and the rule of law which will eventually erode the protections we are granted in the Constitution while accommodating the social and political whims of the elitist judges.
Who or which class of Texan does the Code of Criminal procedure 20.09. have in mind when it mentions "any Credible Person". How does the particular class invoke initiation of a Grand Jury investigation? CCP Art. 20.09. DUTIES OF GRAND JURY. The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person.
It means any credible citizen.
An example of this:
In 1996, the Tarrant County DA’s Office seemed to have little interest in pursuing a murder indictment against Warren Horinek, a former Fort Worth police officer who Ware suspected had killed his wife, Bonnie Arnett Horinek. Ware was friends with Bonnie Arnett Horinek, who had been a partner in the Fort Worth office of Jackson Walker. So he sidestepped the DA’s office.
Ware sent a letter that contained information about the case and a list of two potential witnesses to all 24 members of two grand juries. He also included a copy of Article 20.09, backing up his actions. Ware, two police detectives and a private investigator later testified before the grand jury, and persuaded it to indict Warren Horinek for murder. [See "Defender Turns Accuser in Attorney Murder Case," Texas Lawyer, April 15, 1996, page 9.]
Please describe what you believe are the most significant issues in this race, why and what you'll do to address them?
Winning in November 2020! I am working hard traveling across the state campaigning and raising money in order to win the Republican Primary and the General Election in 2020.
It is imperative that judges uphold the rule of law and do not legislate from the bench. As a true consitutional conservative, I'm committed to follwing the law and not legislating from the bench.
Are the United States and Texas constitutions living documents? Please answer in the context of Progressivism versus Originalism.
The United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution are not living documents. The consitution should be intrepreted based on its original meaning at the time it was written and not be subject to the changing whims of society.
I agree with Jusctice Scalia's position: Justice Scalia ardently believed in strict constitutional interpretation as opposed to viewing the constitution as an evolving document subject to the social and political currents of the times. Justice Scalia speaking at SMU in 2013, unequivocally declared that the “constitution is not a living document.” He said, “It is dead, dead, dead.”
Please describe the changes you will make to improve the efficiency of your court, yet remain thoughful about rulings/orders - that allows all parties to be heard and their arguments considered. Please specifically address how many days a year your court will be “in session.”
Justice is best served when cases are heard in a timely manner. Trail court judges play a key role in the pace of the litigation, since they control the docket and rule on motions for continuance and other motions. As an appellate judge, I would show up and work hard to render a timely opinion. On a practical basis, I would set goals for myself and write succinct opinions in a timely manner.
My oppenent was appointed as a judge in a capital murder case in Waco and then after hearing the case, he took approximately 7 years to write an opinion. This is unacceptable. Justice should be timely.
What are the three main reasons you are running for this office? Do you see any potential conflicts of interest?
I'm an accomplished attorney with more than 33 years of experience as a successful businesswoman, former prosecutor, former general contractor and homebuilder, and community leader. I'm a true constitutional conservative with a strong belief that judges should preserve the rule of law and interpret the law as written.
I have a wide-ranging legal career including criminal law, civil law, business law, church law, and appellate work. As a public servant, I've have represented Texas citizens as a City Attorney, Assistant County Attorney and Assistant District Attorney. I've served on and chaired the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation overseeing and ruling on over a thousand administrative law case appeals.
Do you think judges should be elected by the people, or appointed by a commission?
The voice of the people is the strength of this nation, therefore, I believe judges should be elected by the people.
One only has to look at years of liberal appointments to the federal bench to see the results of an appointed judiciary.
What differentiates you from your opponents?
My broad base of experience as an attorney practicing both as a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney, as well as owning and managing my own law practice are significant differences. To my knowledge, my opponent has never practiced as a criminal defense attorney. This is a negative because serving as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney allow for balanced judgement and better understanding of the issues of the case.
He has worked for the government as prosecutor or judge. He has never had to manage a law practice. As an appellate court judge, the demands of the office require extraordinary adminsitrative skills and strong decision making ability. I have gained these skills through my experience of managing a law practice dealing with the day to day operations of the business as well as representing the clients and understanding the legal issues at hand.
My opponent does not have the years of grassroots experience working for the Republican party that I have. I have been in the trenches working to elect candidates and speaking and writing about conservative values. I have served as RPT Treasurer, RPT Associate General Counsel, a Member of the Ballot Security Team, a National Delegate, and attended all but a few state convenetions since I was 18.
Foremost, I believe the biggest difference is that I'm the true constitutional conservative willing to uphold the rule of law and am passionately committed to never legislating from the bench. My opponent as the presiding judge in the lower court did not follow the rule of law in the high profile case against former Governor Rick Perry (No. PD-1067-15) decided February 24, 2016. In the case involving Governor Perry, it arose over a governor’s ability to exercise a veto. A Travis County grand jury indicted the Governor because he vetoed funds appropriated to the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office. You may remember that the Democrat Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for DWI while in office. A video of how abusive she was to the arresting officers and those in the jail aired on the local news and on social media. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of Governor Perry.
In the concurring opinion Justice Newell said,"I join the Majority's opinion holding that prosecuting the Appellant (Governor Perry) for exercising his absolute right to veto legislation violates the separation of powers under the Texas Constitution. And i agree that prosecuting the appellant (Governor Perry) for merely threatening to veto legislation violates the First Amendment. I write separately because it appears to me that everyone is making this case more complicated than it is because of who it involves (Governor Perry)."
My opponent appears to have been influenced by the political pressure brought upon him and others involved in the case, and therefore, he failed to make a staightforward decision to dismiss the case and uphold the rule of law! This is the biggest difference between me and my opponent. I will not do the politically correct thing, but will instead make the right legal decision based on the rule of law.
Apparently in conflict with current pratice in the courts Art. 19.27. of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states "ANY PERSON MAY CHALLENGE. Before the grand jury has been impaneled, any person may challenge the array of jurors or any person presented as a grand juror. In no other way shall objections to the qualifications and legality of the grand jury be heard. Any person confined in jail in the county shall upon his request be brought into court to make such challenge." What is the practical application of this statute?
The practical application would be to allow a person to make the challenge and follow the law as written.
