Borkian judicial restraint
defer-to-democratic-majorities, 1971–present

Robert Bork's framework holds that judges should defer to democratically-enacted legislation except where the constitutional text clearly forbids — and that figures like Justice Douglas's Griswold majority and the Engel v. Vitale majority overstepped by reading rights into the Constitution that aren't textually clear. Both candidates' substantive positions track the Bork framework closely on abortion, federalism, and state-level legislation. Cornyn fits Bork's framework somewhat better because Bork also valued personal-conduct integrity in high office and treated forum-shopping and personal misconduct as serious professional-ethics concerns separate from substantive doctrine. Paxton's substantive Bork-framework wins are paired with the personal-conduct concerns the Bork tradition treats as separate professional-ethics problems. Cornyn earns the C+1 edge despite both candidates' real doctrinal alignment.