Qualifications: What training, experience and characteristics qualify you for this position?
ETHICS: How will you ensure your rulings remain impartial and free from both political pressure and the interests of your campaign donors?
EQUITY: What role should the Supreme Court play in expanding access to justice for persons or groups who may be underserved?
ISSUES: What do you see as the most pressing challenge facing the courts today, and how would you propose addressing it?
PHILOSOPHY: What is your judicial philosophy?
Gordon Goodman
I served as Justice on the 1st Court of Appeals. Prior to that, I served in senior positions for DuPont, Conoco, and Occidental. In the community, I served on many school and professional boards.
I have published many articles on ethics for the ABA, the UC Business Law Journal, the Heidelberg Journal of International Law, and the Harvard Public Health Review. My articles emphasize that individuals must not only comply with the law in all matters, but also that they must do the right thing even when the law is silent or ambiguous, and even when doing the right thing is unpopular.
The Texas Supreme Court should be accessible to all citizens. There is an important role to be played by individuals and groups whose interests may be impacted by future rulings, and the court should be receptive and attentive to amicus curiae briefs (i.e., briefs filed by friends of the court).
The justices of every court in Texas swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the State of Texas and the United States. The judicial department of Texas is the third arm of the government, and under the Texas constitution, the separation of powers is explicitly stated. The justices of the Texas Supreme Court must base their decisions on the law and not popular opinions.
Like Justices Holmes and Brandeis, I believe a "common law" approach is the most vital. This was the prevailing judicial philosophy for most of the 20th century and is a form of pragmatism. A more popular judicial philosophy today is "originalism" which proposes to interpret the law as it was understood when first enacted. The "common law" approach acknowledges that the world changes over time.
New Paragraph
