On the Issues

                Charlie has no political agenda for the Court, other than impartiality and justice.  The Court has the greatest latitude in reaching decisions under the common law, the great body of judicial precedents built up by centuries of Anglo-American courts.  Common law decisions must develop organically out of prior decisions, modified to suit modern developments and to serve sound public policy.  Courts must defer to the will of the legislature, or the people as exercised through the popular initiative and referendum processes, except for the rare case involving an unconstitutional law.  In interpreting the law, courts must strive to discern the meaning of the language in light of the problem addressed by the legislators and the intent expressed in the law as a whole.  The court’s most sobering responsibility is the interpretation of the constitutions of the state and our nation.  Constitutional interpretation and adjudication must proceed carefully to preserve the careful division of power built into our constitutional framework. 

                Charlie also believes that courts must be ever vigilant to protect the rights of the disadvantaged—minorities, the poor, the unpopular, and those unable to protect themselves.  All great faiths and philosophies teach us that governments must always seek to protect the disadvantaged against abusive power.  This does not mean bending or breaking the law, but it does mean that courts must be sensitive when the balance of power between litigants is inherently unequal and must insure both sides are heard and treated fairly.