Let's start with your
judicial philosophy.
Tell me how you came by it
and how it impacts you
when you're on the bench.
Well, in every case
I'm guided by the same things.
I'm guided by a desire
to do justice for the people
who are in front of me.
I'm guided by a obligation
to apply the law
as fairly
and as
consistently as possible.
And then I'm also obligated
to hold those
who violate
the law accountable
regardless of who they are
or how powerful they are.
So those are really
the three principles
that guide
my decisions in cases.
How do you
approach precedent?
Because we've seen
as the court shifted
majorities over
the last few years
a number of cases
looking at old cases
that have been settled
in the past
"Marklein" being one of those.
But in that category
what would you do to
when you approach
a precedent decision?
Well, first of all
you have to look at does
the precedential case
violate the Constitution?
Does it
protect or take away
people's rights?
So that is the first thing
that I would look at.
Secondly
I think if it is an issue
that involves
constitutional rights
you look at
well, has this been in place
for a long period of time
such that people have relied
on these protections
like "Roe versus Wade"?
It's a perfect example.