Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Ami Sagel
Current job title: Superior Court Judge
Age: 45
Incumbent: Yes
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: Orange County
Campaign website or social media: www.JudgeAmiSagel.comJudgeAmiSagel.com
What do you consider to be your judicial philosophy? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
My judicial philosophy centers around adherence to the law with compassion. Judges have the privilege and responsibility of holding the public trust and must never underestimate the importance of their role in the fair administration of the law and in the public’s overall confidence in the judicial system.
The role of judges and our third branch of government, the judiciary, is to help people seeking justice, resolution, and a fair opportunity to be heard. Having served as a judge since 2023, it is vitally important for me to fulfill that mission as best I can every day that I am a public servant for the residents of California. Those coming to court place their trust in judges to follow the law in a just, knowledgeable, unbiased, and empathetic manner.
My judicial philosophy entails serving the public with understanding, know-how, and a strong sense of fairness. Above all, I have an unwavering commitment to uphold the law with impartiality. Although I know not everyone will be happy with the outcome, judges must ensure that all sides are heard and that the process is fair.
How do you think your personal experience — legal or otherwise — would inform your decisions as a judge? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
As a family law judge, the cases I hear involve the hardest times in someone’s life — divorce, child custody, and domestic violence. Most people come to court feeling afraid, nervous, and frustrated. This experience, as a human being, shapes how I consider cases every day. I never forgot the lasting impact of my decisions. I work hard to apply the law faithfully and to ensure parties are heard.
Also, prior to taking the bench, I was a civil litigator at a corporate law firm, an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting federal crimes, and a solo practitioner working on adoptions and terminations of parental rights. My diverse legal experience has honed my ability to adapt — a trait that serves me well as a judge.
On a personal level, my parents came to the U.S. as immigrants from India. They made a home here, and I reaped the benefits of their sacrifices. My world outlook, as shaped by my family’s story, instilled in me the desire to give back to my community through public service and to treat all litigants appearing before me with empathy and respect.
How would you approach situations where you have judicial discretion within the law? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Discretion within the law recognizes that people and circumstances must be considered individually and that justice would not be served if the law were applied in a strict, blind, or blanket manner. Exercising judicial discretion must be done with great care, deep thought, and a keen awareness of the power that is entrusted. Humility is vital in any act of judging — and that is even more important when exercising judicial discretion.
As a family law judge, most decisions I make allow for wide discretion, such as disputes affecting the best interest of a child. I am profoundly aware of the impact that my decisions have on the lives of the parties before me. I aim to ensure litigants are treated with respect and understanding, and as I would want to be treated in their shoes. I am vigilant to ensure my rulings are not impacted by any implicit biases or personal feelings.
My decisions are informed by common sense, reality, life and work experience. I carefully consider the facts and evidence presented to me and apply the law faithfully.
How would you weigh your own personal beliefs against the law, should they conflict? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Above all, judges must remain impartial. Personal beliefs do not have any place in the courtroom. Judges must do the right thing, especially when it is the hardest or most unpopular thing to do. On a daily basis, as a sitting superior court judge, I make choices that may affect someone’s life, family, livelihood, or freedom — decisions that impact the lives of litigants and their families and have lasting consequences. When doing so, I must always set aside personal beliefs in order to reach a fair and just conclusion.
As judges, we are not required to leave our world experiences outside the courtroom; however, we must be careful never to judge based on our own personal preferences, politics, or beliefs.
As an existing member of the legal community, how would you handle potential claims of misconduct against local attorneys, law firms or law enforcement organizations? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
I have taken an oath to uphold the law with impartiality. Thus, my responsibility as to claims of misconduct in the legal and law enforcement communities should be treated the same way. My job is to hold parties accountable as required by the law, despite the fact that it may be unpopular or uncomfortable to do so. Our society deserves to have judges who take seriously the trust bestowed upon them and act faithfully based on the law.
Importantly, claims of misconduct should also not be taken as true without due process, and it is important to recognize that such allegations carry heavy and negative consequences. My role, if faced with claims of misconduct, would be to follow the regulations in place in the state of California for addressing alleged misconduct and not to react rashly either in support or against the accused party.
What is your philosophy on judicial activism and a judge’s potential role in shaping or setting public policy? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
At the trial court level, a judge’s role is to help individuals resolve disputes through the law. Judges must see their guiding light as the U.S. and California constitutions, as those documents vest authority in them to act, and they mandate that judges faithfully follow the law.
Judges are not policymakers. Although a judge should think about how their ruling in a particular case may impact future decisions, a trial court judge should not decide cases based on policy considerations.
A judge must first examine the facts in light of the plain meaning of the law and, as needed, consider the intent of the legislature in enacting the law. The checks and balances of our three-branch system of government rely upon the credibility and consistency of judges who remain true to their role as stewards of the law.