Suzanne Reynolds on Judge John Tyson and the Family Policy Council questionnaire
Getting back to the subject of the N.C. Family Policy Council questionnaire ...
N.C. Supreme Court candidate Suzanne Reynolds, a Wake Forest law professor, made an issue of it in an address on judicial politics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City law school last month:
"The Family Law Policy Council sent the questionnaire I just described to the judicial candidates who were on the ballot in NC’s May primary, and at least one of them for our intermediate appellate court was only too happy to oblige the Council and completely filled out the questionnaire. Here’s how he filled it out: on the question on the current justices who reflect his judicial philosophy, he could not bring himself to narrow his choices and marked Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas (I think Stevens slipped by him.)
"On the scale of 1-10, since 11 was not an option, the candidate marked 10 to describe his judicial philosophy as a strict constitutionalist and originalist. He marked that there was a right to display the 10 commandments in his courtroom, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky notwithstanding. He said that he did not agree with Lawrence v. Texas, which he and the Family Law Policy Council had interpreted to recognize a right to homosexual sexual relations under the US constitution, rather than, as some of us thought, to hold that a state could not impose criminal sanctions on one’s expression of her sexual identity in private with a consenting adult. The candidate also indicated that he disagreed with Roe v. Wade, agreed with Lofton, the 11th cir. opinion on adoption by gay and lesbians, even though that issue has not been addressed by the appellate courts of North Carolina. He also said that he disagreed with the Santa Fe Independent School District decision on student-initiated invocations at football games and disagreed with Kelo on eminent domain powers to take private property for economic development purposes.
"I might add, however, that this candidate did not make it out of the primary, an incumbent defeated by two other candidates who declined to address these specific questions.
"The Family Policy Council has sent the questionnaire to judicial candidates in the general election. I also declined to answer the questionnaire, and the Family Law Policy Council will post my letter declining to participate on its website."
The incumbent Reynolds referred to is Court of Appeals Judge John Tyson, who finished third in the primary behind Sam J. Ervin IV and Kristin Ruth.
Some of Tyson's colleagues consider him the most partisan judge on the bench and won't be sorry to see him go when his term expires at the end of the year.
Reynolds is running against incumbent Justice Bob Edmunds, who likewise did not answer the Family Policy Council's questions. His response is here.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"The Family Policy Council has sent the questionnaire to judicial candidates in the general election. I also declined to answer the questionnaire, and the Family Law Policy Council will post my letter declining to participate on its website."* Suzanne
Forget their website! Put it on yours like we did and tell them to stick it,,,,,,,,As the election gets closer, voters do visit and read your site.....
NC POLICY QUESTIONNAIRE AND ANSWERS
I recently received a questionnaire from the NC Family Policy Council. My answers are here to assist you in deciding who I am and whether you can vote for me. My answers should not be interpreted as demeaning or ridiculing any religion practiced by individuals. Nor am I against the family unit or anti-family. Rather, the answers are set forth to assist you in reaching your own conclusion about me, not what others say.
Jesus Christ commanded us to "love one another" and to do unto others as you would have done to yourself. If you truly followed this directive, always ask yourself, "what would love do?" in any given situation or question. In answering this question, you will find many of the true answers to the questions that were asked on the NC Family Policy Council questionnaire.
Ask yourself whether this questionnaire is geared towards the promotion of religious intolerance, hatred of homosexuals and a desire to use the power of the state to force you who do not share their views to live your life according to their morals and tenets or whether it is what we would do if we truly loved one another as human beings and sought to do to others what we would have done to ourselves.
VIEW QUESTIONNAIRE PDF HERE
GET FREE ADOBE PDF READER HERE
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Which of the current justice of the United States Supreme Court most closely reflects your judicial philosophy? In truth, none of the current justices on the US Supreme Court accurately reflect my judicial philosophy. Judicial scholarship departed long ago. And there have been a plethora of decisions which may have been correct at the time but are no longer viewed as such. Examples are Dred Scott (slaves are deemed to be property), Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), Korematsu v. United States (internment of Japanese during World War II) and the recent decision in Kelo v. City of New London (private property can be taken by a governmental entity and given to private developers under the eminent domain law), to name a few. These decisions have shown that the US Supreme Court is made up of humans who are not infallible. Therefore, I do not seek to emulate any of these individuals. Regarding my judicial philosophy, I have expressed this repeatedly at my website at www.rachelforjustice.com. Please review my website to see what I have written in greater detail. In short, words should be given their plain meaning and judges are not free to impose their own agendas or whims on the law. Judges are not legislators. I am opposed to judicial activism whether it comes from the right or the left and I respect the separation of powers.
2. On a scale of 1-10, please rate your constitutional judicial philosophy, with a "living document" approach being a "1" and a "strict constitutionalist" or "originalist" approach being a "10". See answer to number 1.
3. Do you believe that a judge has the right to display the Ten Commandments in his or her courtroom? By displaying the Ten Commandments, a judge is declaring him or herself to be a judicial activist.
4. In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the United States Supreme Court recognized a right to homosexual relations under the United States Constitution. Do you agree with the Lawrence decision, which recognizes a right to homosexual relationships? All people have the same rights regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. I would fairly enforce the law as providing for equal rights.
5. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the United States Supreme Court recognized a right to abortion under the United States Constitution. Do you agree with the Roe decision, which recognizes a constitutional right to abortion? I have set forth my position on my website. Please review my website at www.rachelforjustice.com to see what I have written in greater detail. The state supreme court has no authority to overturn Roe v. Wade. As long as Roe remains the law it must be enforced, regardless of my personal thoughts on the decision. If it is overturned, this is a matter for the states to decide whether abortion should be allowed. I am a Catholic, however.
6. In Lofton v. Dept. of Children & Family Service, 358 F.3d 804 ((11th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the State of Florida's position that individuals who "engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity" do not have the right to adopt children under the United States Constitution. Do you agree with the Lofton decision, which recognizes that individuals engaged in current, voluntary homosexual activity do not have a constitutional right to adopt children? See answer to number 4.
7. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a student-initiated, student-led invocation over the loudspeakers before a public high school football game was unconstitutional. Do you agree with the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe decision, which recognizes that student-initiated, student-led invocations prior to a public high school football game violate the United States Constitution? The state supreme court has no authority to overturn this case. As long as Santa Fe remains the law it must be enforced, regardless of my personal thoughts on the decision.
8. In Kelo v. City of New London, 126 S.Ct. 2655 (2005), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a governmental entity's use of eminent domain powers to take private property for economic development purposes did not violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do you agree with the Kelo decision, which recognizes that governmental entities can constitutionally take private property for economic development? Kelo is almost universally criticized by everyone. However, why are the citizens not more concerned with decisions of North Carolina? In Dept. of Transportation (DoT) v. Rowe, 353 N.C. 671 (2001), the NC Supreme Court held that DoT could condemn eleven acres of the property owner's land without paying any compensation because it determined that the benefits of the roadway which would be built would outweigh the costs of the taking. Thus, no compensation was due. In Westminster Homes v. Town of Cary, 354 N.C. 298 (2000), the NC Supreme Court held that a developer could not install gates in a buffer zone to allow the property owners to access a portion of their property. As the dissent concluded, the effect of this decision is to deprive the home owners of a portion of their property without any compensation.
Why are these decisions, in which my opponent participated and in which he joined the majority, not more thoroughly discussed?
Paid for by Rachel Lea Hunter for Supreme Court
Suite 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary , North Carolina 27513
Ph. 877-893-3713 | Fax 877-893-371
Posted on October 2, 2008 12:27 PM
http://www.rachelforjustice.com/questionnaire.html
Posted on October 2, 2008 12:31 PM
Connie, you're out of date. Rachel isn't a candidate.
Posted on October 2, 2008 10:57 PM
gujgyug67u8tyyfiop8oojik;
\lk;,k..,njmhydrfkki9e54
Posted on October 17, 2008 11:46 AM