Issue Position: Judicial Philosophy

Issue Position

In our constitutional framework, the role of a judge is limited to interpreting and applying the Constitution and duly enacted laws. A judge must defer to the policy choices made by the legislature and not attempt to impose personal preferences or policy from the bench. In short, I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of judges.

I believe that in interpreting a constitutional or statutory provision, a judge must apply the original meaning of the provision. I believe that the public is entitled to as much clarity as possible from courts so that our citizens can order their behavior around a predictable set of rules that are known in advance and consistently applied.

I believe that courts exist for the benefit of the litigants and the communities we serve, not for the benefit of lawyers or judges. Nor does the court exist to benefit any particular constituency or person over another. Equal justice under law means that the party with the better argument on how the law applies to a given set of facts must prevail, without consideration of status, wealth, or influence and without reference to popular sentiment or political expedience.

Source