your judicial philosophy.
How would you describe it
and how does it guide
you from the bench?
I describe my philosophy
as originalism
with a slice of textualism
which means for those
who are not law nerds like me
which means that I look
at the documents
and the laws
as they're written
and I interpret them
from that point of view.
And if you have to go
a little bit outside, I do
but I don't go
all the way outside to
intent of legislators
and things like that.
When it comes to precedent
you've mentioned a couple times
that if you win
you would be in the minority.
But that's not a forever thing.
As we've seen
the court can change.
What is the standard
when it comes
to overruling precedent?
Precedent means
that you don't
just because the court
changes composition
you don't necessarily go back
and then revisit things
you've just done.
Precedent is that you respect
you give stare decisis.
It's a credit
and it's a benefit to cases
that have been done
and you give them time to
maybe air
to be looked at
when courts have
overturned precedent.
The U.S. Supreme Court
in general
it's something that's maybe
20 or 30 years down the road.
It's not something
that they just do willy nilly
as Scalia would say.
It's something
that you have to have seen
that it doesn't work.
You can't just say
'I'm now
the member of the majority
so everything that was done
I get to undo.'
That's not how courts work.
We need to restore
the respect
and integrity in those courts
and have them move forward
and not always
be looking back to things
that they want to change.