My Judicial Philosophy
Although the doctrine of stare decisis is an important one, in terms of bringing a certain amount of stability to the legal system, to blindly follow precedent to the exclusion of all other considerations robs American jurisprudence of the flexibility necessary to justice. Our Constitution is a living document, designed to withstand the test of time by being capable of being interpreted to accommodate a changing society. For example, if precedent were the only consideration, then Dred Scott v. Sanford would still be the law and black people would not and could not be citizens and could be “bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of traffic, whenever profit could be made by it;” Plessy v. Ferguson would reign and “separate but equal” would have ensured that our society never became racially integrated. It has become popular in recent years to decry the advances made for civil rights as “judicial activism,” [as opposed, say, to the Supreme Court determining the winner of a presidential election], but our courts have played an essential role in the advancement of human and individual rights. Without the judiciary, the rights of individuals and minorities might never exist. Both the legislative and executive branches play to the majority, and historically have resisted the cause of unpopular minority viewpoints. Few state legislators or congresspersons will champion the criminally accused or the electorally disenfranchised; even if they forge a successful majority to do so, the executive branch is frequently loathe to enforce such a law. Therefore, the judiciary stepped into its unique role. To me, the most important attribute for a judge to have is intellectual honesty. A judge should know the law, keep apprised of the law and aspire to follow the law. However, she must not be so rigid that justice is sacrificed for the sake of technicality, or worse, to reach an outcome that is politically popular. A judge should not be so desperate to keep the bench that she kowtows to the prosecution’s every whim. A judge should be ever mindful that not every person brought before the bench has had good education, family love and support and a well-paying job. Most of all, a judge should refrain from hateful personal attacks, ridicule and insults directed at the accused, witnesses, court staff or lawyers. Much has been said lately about how “tough” the current Harris County judiciary is. Prominently missing from those boasts is the word “fair.” It is time we brought fairness back into the Harris County courthouse. Justice – with fairness and courtesy toward all. Judge Reagin is currently the sitting judge for the 176th Criminal District Court and is running for re-election. |