Why are you seeking this bench and what 3 primary goals do you have in mind if you are elected?
I am willing to work hard to win the primary election in 2024 and will be a stalwart to defend our constitution, uphold the rule of law and interpret and apply the law as written. As a constitutional conservative who loves Texas, I’m running for judge to keep our communities safe, preserve the rule of law, and protect the rights of victims while simultaneously ensuring due process. Together let’s make justice great again.
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.”
What carries the greatest influence on your rulings: case law, the Constitutions, or other?
Undoubtedly, the United States Constitution carries the greatest influence.
Please describe the best way for the average voter to determine which judicial candidate is best.
It requires diligence to research any candidate, especially judicial candidates because of the perception that judicial candidates cannot share their political views. After the White decision, candidates can state their positions more freely. Grassroots activism is the most important way to detemine the best candidate because it encompasses all of the these ways to eductate oneself: attend political meetings, attend candidate forums, review candidate websites, and have an awareness of the key decisions the judges have made while on the bench. If the candidate is not an incumbent, scrutinize their personal involvement in the community and politically.
Do you believe in the right of the people to jury nullification as jurors in criminal courts? Why or why not?
As a part of United States legal tradition, jury nullification grants juries an implied power to defy the law when they perceive it as unjust and to overlook the letter of the law in favor of justice. While jury nullification can serve as an important check on unjust laws or harsh sentences critics argue that it undermines the rule of law, allowing a jury to ignore clear legal standards. However, given the overreach of the government, jury nullification could undoubtedly serve as check against the abuse of power we are now witnessing in our nation.
To what extent do you believe the state or federal government should be able to obtain court orders directing parents to do things for their children that the parent does not believe should be done?
Unequivocally, a parent's rights are paramount and should be protected. A parent should be able to direct the upbringing of their children without government or court interference.
Please describe the qualifications and experience that make you the best candidate for the office you are seeking.
I'm an accomplished attorney with more than 33 years of experience. I've practiced as both a prosecutor and defense attorney, so I would bring a balanced perspective to the court. I have a wide-ranging legal career, including criminal law, business law, church law, and appellate work. As a public servant, I've 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 adminstrative law appeals.
Most importantly, I'm a true constitutional conservative with a strong belief that judges should preserve the rule of law and interpret the law as written. My legal career and political involvement demonstrate that this is more than a politically correct conservative statement. Over the years, I have been a speaker about constitutional issues. I received the Outstanding Texas Eagle Award for Dedicated Work to the United States Constitution and also served as the Eagle Forum National Judicial Reform Chairwoman. I helped write the study guide for Phyllis Schlafly's book the Supremacists, The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.
I've interviewed a number of Texas judges and the main comments about their role as a judge were that the job requires adminstrative ability and a strong work ethic. I have managed my law practice and founded and managed a dental manufacturing company. One of my main strengths is adminstration, and I am diligent about getting a job done right the first time.
What 2 things about your opponent do the voters need to know?
*My opponent joined the majority open in the landmark Stephens case where they abruptly stripped the Texas Attorney General of all authority to prosecute election fraud without the consent of a local district attorney. This in effect will allow election fraud to continue to run rampant. In doing so, the court broke with over a century of Texas Supreme Court precedent and the expressed will of the legislature.
*My opponent if elected cannot fulfill a full term of office becase she will "age out" due to current age limits. She can only serve about half her term which means the next sitting governor would make an appointment to fill her unexpired term. I believe the people should have a choice in election of judges, especially in light of the growing influence the courts have on society.
What role should government have in reforming criminals?
One of the purposes of the criminal law is to reform criminal behavior. In this regard, for years the plan has been that a tough sentence or a probationary period with clearly set forth terms and conditions of probation would result in changed behavior. Currently, with the increase in drug and alcohol addiction, there are now drug and DWI courts in some counties that are experiencing success in reforming behavior. This is the most pressing challenge for the justice system today. The issue of recidvism is real especially with crimes involving drugs and alcohol. The legislature is best equipped to address the recidvism rate, the rehabilitation of criminals, and the duty of government to protect citizens and keep our communities safe.
How relevent today is Blackstone's maxim "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer".
More important than ever given that the law is being weaponized to attack innocent people.
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.
CSPOA says "Civil forfeiture laws pose one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today. They encourage law enforcement to favor the pursuit of property over the pursuit of justice, and they typically give the innocent little recourse for recovering seized property. And without meaningful transparency, law enforcement faces little public accountability for its forfeiture activity or expenditures from forfeiture funds." How should these Civil Forfieture issues be addressed?
It appears there is a built in conflict of interest and there cannot be due process of law without transparency and accountability. Therefore, this is an issue that the legislature should address.
In your view, what is the threshold for determining constitutionality of a legislative act? or a challenge to it?
On June 26, 2019, while the Supreme Court declined to overrule Auer, the majority opinion Kisor v. Wilkie, 2019 WL 2605554, 588 U.S. --- (June 26, 2019) (“Kisor”) considerably limits judicial deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules. After Kisor, courts can defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous rules only if five conditions are met:
1. A regulation must be “genuinely ambiguous”, determined after a court exhausts “all traditional tools of construction.”
2. An agency’s interpretation must be “reasonable”; more specifically, the interpretation “must come within the zone of ambiguity the court has identified after employing all its interpretive tools.”
3. The agency’s interpretation must be the agency’s “authoritative” or “official” position. Interpretation must come from actors who can make “authoritative policy in the relevant context.”
4. Deference must be limited to situations that involve an application of an agency’s “substantive expertise”; decisions on issues that traditionally fall within a judge’s knowledge base would not be given deference.
5. The agency’s interpretation must “reflect fair and considered judgment” and not create “unfair surprise” to the regulated parties.
Justice Gorsuch’s concurring judgment, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh argued that the Court should have done away with Auer completely. Nevertheless, Justice Gorsuch concluded that the limitations placed on the Auer doctrine after the majority’s opinion left its applicability “maimed…enfeebled [and] in truth zombified.”
Most importantly, the act should not violate the Texas or United States Constitution.
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.
Among the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court(SCOTUS), which one do you respect the most, and why? Which one do you respect the least, and why? What judicial philosophy should a SCOTUS Justice have?
While Justice Scalia has passed away, he still remains the the justice that I most respect because he 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.” He then added, “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” I admire him because he had respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Men and women in black robes have supplanted the rule of law with the rule of judges. Justice Scalia described it this way, “What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become justices of this Court, that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional? . . . Day by day, case by case, [the Court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” It is imperative for the integrity of the judicial system to be returned to the rule of law.
However, I also admire Justice Samuel Alito. He wrote an outstanding majority opinion in the Dobbs case. He opined in the opinion, "Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives." Thus, a government of the people.
Along with Justice Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas has been a stalwart on the court preserving the rule of law and upholding the Constitution.
If elected, do you think you'd be invited to participate in the Freedom Caucus? Why or why not?
This is not applicable because I'm running for a judicial post.
