DO-OVER."
SPEAKER VOS SAYS MOVING TO
IMPEACH JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ IS
NOT OFF THE TABLE.
HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS,
SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, ZAC
SCHULTZ, AT THE CAPITOL.
HI, ZAC.
>> Reporter: HEY, FRED.
>> SO NOW VOS IS TYING POSSIBLE
IMPEACHMENT TO HOW SHE RULES ON
THE CASE, THAT SHE DID NOT
RECUSE HERSELF FROM, AND SAYING
THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
COULD BE THE DECIDER OVER ALL OF
THIS.
AS WE HEARD FROM JUSTICE REBECCA
BRADLEY, HE'S NOT ALONE IN
WANTING THIS TO GO ALL THE WAY
UP.
>> Reporter: WELL, AT THIS
POINT, THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE
THEY CAN GO BECAUSE THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IS
CONTROLLED BY LIBERALS WHO WOULD
OBVIOUSLY NOT RULE IN FAVOR AND
WOULD SUPPORT JANET PROTASIEWICZ
IN HER RECUSAL DECISION.
SO THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT, EITHER TO
OVERRULE HER DECISION NOT TO
RECUSE OR TO OVERRULE ANY
DECISION THAT WOULD COME DOWN
FROM THE MAJORITY IN THE SUPREME
COURT IN WISCONSIN ABOUT
CREATING NEW REDISTRICTING MAPS.
AFTER ALL, IT WAS THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT LAST TIME WHO
KICKED THE ORIGINAL CASE BACK TO
THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT,
WHICH THEN PUT IN PLACE THOSE
CONSERVATIVE MAPS THAT WE ARE
UNDER.
REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME AROUND,
THE SUPREME COURT WITH JUSTICE
HAGEDORN, SIDED WITH GOVERNOR
EVERS AND CHOSE DEMOCRATIC MAPS
UNTIL THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
SAID NO.
>> HOW SURPRISING WAS IT THAT
FORMER JUSTICE PROSSER AND
ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE, FORMER
JUSTICE TOLD VOS THAT THERE
SHOULD BE NO EFFORT TO IMPEACH
PROTASIEWICZ?
>> Reporter: WELL, THESE ARE
CONSERVATIVES FROM THE SUPREME
COURT, BUT THEY'RE STILL FORMER
MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
SO IT'S NOT SURPRISING THEY
WOULD TRY AND READ THE LAW IN
ITS PLAIN LANGUAGE AND IT
CLEARLY TALKS ABOUT CONTEMPT
CONDUCT AND CORRUPT CONDUCT IN
OFFICE.
ALL THESE CAME ON THE CAMPAIGN
TRAIL BEFORE JANET WAS JUSTICE
PROTASIEWICZ, SO IT'S PRETTY
CLEAR THAT THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN READ.
IF YOU WERE ACIDIC, ALWAYS ARGUE
YOU CAN FIND ANY JUSTICE
SOMEWHERE TO TRY AND SAY WHAT
YOU WANT IT TO SAY, SO I THINK
YOU COULD ALSO READ INTO THAT
THAT SPEAKER VOS SIMPLY DOESN'T
HAVE THE VOTES RIGHT NOW IN THE
ASSEMBLY TO IMPEACH, IF HE
WANTED TO, AND THAT HE WOULD
NEED SUPPORT FROM OUTSIDE PLACES
LIKE FORMER JUSTICES TO SAY,
YES, YOU SHOULD DO THIS, IN
ORDER TO BRING THE REST OF THIS
CAUCUS ALONG.
>> THERE WAS ALSO THE ARGUMENT
THAT PROTASIEWICZ SHOULD STEP
ASIDE BECAUSE SHE GOT CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DEMOCRATIC
PARTY OF WISCONSIN BUT THE PARTY
ISN'T A PARTY IN THE CASE.
DOES THAT HOLD UP IN TERMS OF
IMPEACHMENT?
>> Reporter: IN TERMS OF
IMPEACHMENT, THAT'S UNCLEAR.
THAT WAS PART OF THE CAMPAIGN.
THAT WASN'T PART OF HER TIME IN
OFFICE, SO IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT
IMPEACHMENT, BUT IT WAS
SOMETHING THAT SHE SPOKE TO IN
HER RECUSAL, IN HER DECISION NOT
TO RECUSE FROM THESE CASES,
WHERE SHE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT
OF MONEY THAT WAS CONTRIBUTED BY
A NONPARTY THAT WASN'T BEFORE
HER AT THE TIME THE MONEY WAS
CONTRIBUTED SHOULD HAVE NO
IMPACT ON HER AGENT TO GYMNASIUM
THIS -- ABILITY TO DECIDE THIS
CASE.
SHE POINTED TO OTHER JUDGES WHO
RECEIVED FUNDING FROM
CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL INTEREST
GROUPS AND SAYING THAT THEY'VE
ALL ABOUT INFLUENCED BY THIS AND
THEY DIDN'T RECUSE SO SHE
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EITHER.
>> WHAT WAS PROTASIEWICZ SAYING
IT MIGHT CONFIRM PRECONCEPTIONS
ON THE REDISTRICTING ISSUE?
>> Reporter: WELL, REMEMBER,
REDISTRICTING WAS JUST BEFORE
THIS COURT IN THE LAST SESSION
AND EVERYONE WROTE ON THIS.
THEY WROTE THEIR OWN DISSENTS,
THEY WROTE THEIR MAJORITY
OPINIONS, SO EVERYONE IS ON THE
RECORD IN TERMS OF HOW THEY DID
DECIDE THIS CASE.
NOW, THESE APPEALS ARE BASED ON
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT
THEY SAY WEREN'T ADDRESSED AT
THIS TIME.
THE CONSERVATIVES SAY, WELL,
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DON'T
NEED TO TAKE.
WE JUST DECIDED THAT THIS IS THE
PRECEDENT THAT WE SHOULD BE
GOING ON UNTIL 10 YEARS FROM NOW
AND THE LIBERALS ON THE COURT
ARE SAYING, NO, THIS IS
SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.
IT'S A NEW ANGLE.
OF COURSE IT HELPS WHEN AT THE
TIME MAJORITY SO THEY CAN SAY
THAT -- WHEN AT THE THEY HAVE THE
MAJORITY.
THAT COULD BE THE BASIS OF
PRECONCEPTIONS, BUT THAT'S ALSO
WHY THE SUPREME COURT TYPICALLY
DOESN'T DECIDE THE SAME CASE
MULTIPLE SESSIONS IN A ROW ONCE
THEY DECIDE IT STANDS UNLESS
THERE'S A NEW ANGLE, WHICH IS
WHAT THEY SAY GROUPS ARE SAYING
IS THE REASON WHY THE COURTS
SHOULD TAKE THIS ISSUE UP NOW.
>> BACK TO THIS ISSUE OF RECUSAL
WITH JUST ABOUT A HALF A MINUTE
LEFT, WHAT HAPPENS IF JANET
PROTASIEWICZ WAS COMPELLED IN
THE END BY THE HIGH COURT TO
RECUSE?
>> Reporter: WELL, IF SHE'S
NOT ON IT, THEN THERE'S ONLY SIX
JUSTICES LEFT.
THEY'RE SPLIT 3-3.
JUSTICE HAGEDORN WOULD BE A
SWING VOTE, BUT WE SAW FROM HIS
DISSENT IN THE DECISION TO TAKE
THE CASE THAT HE DOESN'T THINK
THE COURT NEEDS TO REVISIT THIS
ISSUE, SO MONTH MORE LIKELY THAN NOT,
IT WOULD BE DEADLOCKED AND