1
00:00:01,602 --> 00:00:04,004
Fitzgerald, we leave it
there. Thank you so much.

2
00:00:04,071 --> 00:00:06,840
>> Thank you. Good to be
with you.

3
00:00:06,907 --> 00:00:09,343
>> Turning to the spring
election for the Wisconsin

4
00:00:09,409 --> 00:00:12,613
Supreme Court, the seat
opening up after

5
00:00:12,679 --> 00:00:14,681
Conservative Justice
Rebecca Bradley decided not

6
00:00:14,748 --> 00:00:18,318
to run again will not
change the balance of the

7
00:00:18,385 --> 00:00:21,188
court. The conservative
candidate is appellate

8
00:00:21,255 --> 00:00:24,324
court judge Maria Lazar,
and the Liberal candidate

9
00:00:24,391 --> 00:00:27,528
is appellate court Judge
Chris Taylor. Here and now,

10
00:00:27,594 --> 00:00:30,397
senior political reporter
Zac Schultz sat down with

11
00:00:30,464 --> 00:00:34,268
each of the candidates last
week. We heard from Maria

12
00:00:34,334 --> 00:00:38,372
Lazar tonight, Chris Taylor.
>> Judge Taylor, thanks for

13
00:00:38,438 --> 00:00:40,307
your time today.
>> Thanks so much for

14
00:00:40,374 --> 00:00:43,544
having me. I really
appreciate it.

15
00:00:43,610 --> 00:00:45,812
judicial philosophy. Tell
me how you came by it and

16
00:00:45,879 --> 00:00:48,048
how it impacts you when
you're on the bench.

17
00:00:48,115 --> 00:00:51,151
>> Well, in every case, I'm
guided by the same things.

18
00:00:51,218 --> 00:00:55,923
I'm guided by a desire to
do justice for the people

19
00:00:55,989 --> 00:01:00,594
who are in front of me. I'm
guided by a obligation to

20
00:01:00,661 --> 00:01:05,766
apply the law as fairly and
as consistently as possible.

21
00:01:05,832 --> 00:01:08,802
And then I'm also obligated
to hold those who violate

22
00:01:08,869 --> 00:01:11,605
the law accountable,
regardless of who they are

23
00:01:11,672 --> 00:01:15,175
or how how powerful they
are. So those are really

24
00:01:15,242 --> 00:01:20,047
the three principles that
guide us. My decisions in

25
00:01:20,814 --> 00:01:22,850
cases.
>> So you've been in this

26
00:01:22,916 --> 00:01:24,885
race for a while, and
originally your opponent

27
00:01:24,952 --> 00:01:27,020
was going to be the
incumbent, Justice Rebecca

28
00:01:27,087 --> 00:01:28,755
Bradley. What was your
reaction when she decided

29
00:01:28,822 --> 00:01:31,558
not to run again?
>> You know, my focus

30
00:01:31,625 --> 00:01:34,628
really is on the people,
the state of Wisconsin,

31
00:01:34,695 --> 00:01:37,564
regardless of who my
opponent is. I am in this

32
00:01:37,631 --> 00:01:41,168
race because I care deeply
about the people in our

33
00:01:41,235 --> 00:01:44,872
state. They deserve a
justice and a court that is

34
00:01:44,938 --> 00:01:48,075
going to stand up for their
rights and protect their

35
00:01:48,141 --> 00:01:50,377
freedoms, and they deserve
a court that is going to

36
00:01:50,444 --> 00:01:53,413
make sure that the other
branches of government are

37
00:01:53,480 --> 00:01:56,083
held accountable, including
the federal government,

38
00:01:56,149 --> 00:01:59,253
when they overreach into
the independence of our

39
00:01:59,319 --> 00:02:02,389
state. So I'm very focused
on getting to the people,

40
00:02:02,456 --> 00:02:05,058
talking with the people. My
approach doesn't change

41
00:02:05,125 --> 00:02:09,296
based on who I'm running
against. This is a campaign

42
00:02:09,363 --> 00:02:12,466
about the people of the
state of Wisconsin, and I'm

43
00:02:12,533 --> 00:02:15,102
going to be a justice for
the people of the state of

44
00:02:15,169 --> 00:02:17,871
Wisconsin.
you don't see a big

45
00:02:17,938 --> 00:02:20,274
difference between Rebecca
Bradley and Maria Lazar

46
00:02:20,340 --> 00:02:22,910
your opponent.
>> Now. You know, I think

47
00:02:22,976 --> 00:02:25,445
they're very similar in a
lot of ways. They have very

48
00:02:25,512 --> 00:02:29,383
extreme positions that are
out of touch with the

49
00:02:29,449 --> 00:02:32,619
people. Wisconsin on
reproductive health care.

50
00:02:32,686 --> 00:02:36,456
My opponent, Maria Lazar,
celebrated the overturning

51
00:02:36,523 --> 00:02:40,360
of Roe versus Wade. She has
made comments that she

52
00:02:40,427 --> 00:02:45,232
would have enforced an 1849
criminal ban that would

53
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:50,437
have outlawed abortion. In
almost every instance, she

54
00:02:50,504 --> 00:02:53,807
has made comments that she
thinks a six week abortion

55
00:02:53,874 --> 00:02:57,211
ban would be a good thing,
signaling to the

56
00:02:57,277 --> 00:03:00,080
legislature that this might
be a law that she would be

57
00:03:00,147 --> 00:03:04,418
okay with as a judge. So
those things indicate that

58
00:03:04,484 --> 00:03:09,156
she cannot be counted on to
protect rights and freedoms

59
00:03:09,223 --> 00:03:12,326
of Wisconsinites. And she
wants to take us backwards.

60
00:03:12,392 --> 00:03:15,362
I want to take the state
and the people of the state

61
00:03:15,429 --> 00:03:17,431
forward.
>> Given the last couple of

62
00:03:17,497 --> 00:03:19,466
races we've seen in
Wisconsin, how much money

63
00:03:19,533 --> 00:03:22,436
do you think it's going to
take to win this race?

64
00:03:22,503 --> 00:03:25,372
>> You know, I'm hoping not
as much as what we have

65
00:03:25,439 --> 00:03:29,109
seen. It has gotten
ridiculous how much money

66
00:03:29,176 --> 00:03:31,778
are in these races. And
when I was in the

67
00:03:31,845 --> 00:03:35,282
legislature, I fought
against the erosion of our

68
00:03:35,349 --> 00:03:39,052
campaign finance laws. The
reality is, here in

69
00:03:39,119 --> 00:03:43,557
Wisconsin, we have very
little laws that prevent

70
00:03:43,624 --> 00:03:46,426
these out-of-state
billionaires and big money

71
00:03:46,493 --> 00:03:48,729
special interests from
coming into this race.

72
00:03:48,795 --> 00:03:51,431
They're going to be coming
in to support my opponent.

73
00:03:51,498 --> 00:03:54,168
That is how she got elected
to the Court of Appeals.

74
00:03:54,234 --> 00:03:57,171
These same right wing
billionaires that we saw

75
00:03:57,237 --> 00:04:00,073
last April have supported
her in the past.

76
00:04:00,140 --> 00:04:02,009
>> The first fundraising
numbers that came out

77
00:04:02,075 --> 00:04:04,411
showed you with a
commanding lead in

78
00:04:04,478 --> 00:04:06,647
fundraising. Is there a
danger that some of your

79
00:04:06,713 --> 00:04:08,782
supporters may think, oh,
this race is over?

80
00:04:08,849 --> 00:04:11,818
>> I hope not, because this
race is not over. We are

81
00:04:11,885 --> 00:04:14,955
right in the thick of it. I
take nothing for granted. I

82
00:04:15,022 --> 00:04:18,725
worked very hard to get out
in all corners of the state,

83
00:04:18,792 --> 00:04:22,029
and of course my campaign
worked very hard to raise

84
00:04:22,095 --> 00:04:27,034
the resources that I would
need out of my, I think,

85
00:04:27,100 --> 00:04:29,837
19,000 campaign
contributions, 15,000 of

86
00:04:29,903 --> 00:04:34,241
those are $100 or less. So
I am receiving a lot of

87
00:04:35,909 --> 00:04:37,945
support from the people of
the state of Wisconsin.

88
00:04:38,011 --> 00:04:40,881
That contrasts with my
opponent. Her average

89
00:04:40,948 --> 00:04:45,519
campaign donation was
$1,800, and she only had 16

90
00:04:47,421 --> 00:04:51,992
donations that were $100 or
less. So she's clearly

91
00:04:52,059 --> 00:04:55,462
getting her support and
will continue to do so from

92
00:04:55,529 --> 00:04:59,666
the billionaires, from the
big corporations. I'm going

93
00:04:59,733 --> 00:05:02,669
to the people and asking
for their support because

94
00:05:02,736 --> 00:05:05,339
this race is about them.
>> Unlike the last couple

95
00:05:05,405 --> 00:05:07,941
of races, this one's not
going to likely determine

96
00:05:08,008 --> 00:05:10,878
the majority on on the
bench. Does that run the

97
00:05:10,944 --> 00:05:13,580
risk that this flies under
the radar for some people

98
00:05:13,647 --> 00:05:15,682
because they don't feel the
stakes are as high?

99
00:05:15,749 --> 00:05:18,819
>> I mean, I don't think so
because the majority on

100
00:05:18,886 --> 00:05:23,290
this court can be changed
on a dime. We have five

101
00:05:23,357 --> 00:05:26,593
state Supreme Court
elections coming up. And so

102
00:05:26,660 --> 00:05:30,197
just because there's now a
pro-democracy majority on

103
00:05:30,264 --> 00:05:34,501
this court by only one vote
does not lessen the

104
00:05:35,102 --> 00:05:38,272
importance of this court.
And when we have so many

105
00:05:38,338 --> 00:05:41,008
elections coming up,
there's four more state

106
00:05:41,074 --> 00:05:44,545
Supreme Court elections
coming up after mine. No

107
00:05:44,611 --> 00:05:47,781
one should take anything
for granted. This court can

108
00:05:47,848 --> 00:05:51,985
change very quickly, but if
I am able to get elected,

109
00:05:52,052 --> 00:05:55,355
there will be a
pro-democracy majority on

110
00:05:55,422 --> 00:05:58,225
the court until at least
2030.

111
00:05:59,526 --> 00:06:01,461
>> A couple of years ago,
when Janet Protasiewicz won

112
00:06:01,528 --> 00:06:03,897
her race, she kind of
changed the game in terms

113
00:06:03,964 --> 00:06:07,968
of talking as a candidate
about her values versus

114
00:06:08,035 --> 00:06:10,103
issues and making sure to
stay away from how she

115
00:06:10,170 --> 00:06:11,572
would decide. But
explaining to voters, this

116
00:06:11,638 --> 00:06:14,441
is what I care about. This
is what I'm passionate

117
00:06:14,508 --> 00:06:16,109
about. How do you approach
talking about your values

118
00:06:16,176 --> 00:06:18,278
or issues?
>> Well, I think it's

119
00:06:18,345 --> 00:06:22,082
really important that
voters see who I am and

120
00:06:22,149 --> 00:06:25,853
they deserve that. They are
electing me to a ten year

121
00:06:25,919 --> 00:06:29,456
term to the highest court
in our state. So I am very

122
00:06:29,523 --> 00:06:33,427
open about what my values
are. You know, I value

123
00:06:33,493 --> 00:06:36,263
every person's ability to
make their own personal

124
00:06:36,330 --> 00:06:39,533
private health care
decisions. My opponent does

125
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:43,136
not. She has stated that
that is not a value that

126
00:06:43,203 --> 00:06:47,708
she has. I value courts
protecting people's rights

127
00:06:47,774 --> 00:06:51,912
and freedoms and holding
people and entities

128
00:06:51,979 --> 00:06:54,581
accountable when they
violate our law and violate

129
00:06:54,648 --> 00:06:57,918
our Constitution. My
opponent has shown that she

130
00:06:57,985 --> 00:07:02,055
is a rubber stamp for the
most powerful and the right

131
00:07:02,122 --> 00:07:05,559
wing extremists in the
decisions that she has

132
00:07:05,626 --> 00:07:09,096
issued. And so I think it's
really fair game for the

133
00:07:09,162 --> 00:07:12,566
public to know. These
things are things we value.

134
00:07:12,633 --> 00:07:14,635
>> How do you approach
precedent? Because we've

135
00:07:14,701 --> 00:07:17,004
seen as the court shifted
majorities over the last

136
00:07:17,070 --> 00:07:20,274
few years, a number of
cases looking at old cases

137
00:07:20,340 --> 00:07:23,110
that have been settled in
the past, Marklein being

138
00:07:23,177 --> 00:07:25,879
one of those. But in that
category, what would you do

139
00:07:25,946 --> 00:07:29,016
to when you approach a
precedent decision?

140
00:07:29,082 --> 00:07:32,619
have to look at does the
precedential case violate

141
00:07:32,686 --> 00:07:36,156
the Constitution? Does it
does it protect or take

142
00:07:36,223 --> 00:07:38,525
away people's rights? So
that is the first thing

143
00:07:38,592 --> 00:07:41,361
that I would look at.
Secondly, I think if it is

144
00:07:41,428 --> 00:07:43,997
an issue that evolves in
constitutional rights, you

145
00:07:44,064 --> 00:07:48,302
look at, well, has this
been in place for a long

146
00:07:48,368 --> 00:07:51,505
period of time such that
people have relied on these

147
00:07:51,572 --> 00:07:54,308
protections like Roe versus
Wade? It's a perfect

148
00:07:54,374 --> 00:07:58,612
example. The Dobbs case
took away rights that

149
00:07:59,713 --> 00:08:02,716
American women in Wisconsin
women had come to depend on

150
00:08:02,783 --> 00:08:04,852
over the last 50 years,
throughout the duration of

151
00:08:04,918 --> 00:08:08,822
my life. And so that was
very alarming that it was

152
00:08:08,889 --> 00:08:12,059
so flippantly done, 50
years of precedent. Again,

153
00:08:12,125 --> 00:08:15,696
that conflicts my opinion
about Roe versus Wade,

154
00:08:15,762 --> 00:08:19,766
conflicts with my opponent,
who celebrated the reversal

155
00:08:19,833 --> 00:08:23,270
of Roe versus Wade. So what
I look at, though, in

156
00:08:23,337 --> 00:08:28,075
looking at precedent, is
did this case comport with

157
00:08:28,141 --> 00:08:31,912
constitutional protections
or did it not? So there is

158
00:08:31,979 --> 00:08:34,047
appropriate cases where
precedent should be

159
00:08:34,114 --> 00:08:37,584
overturned. I mean, look at
Plessy versus Ferguson.

160
00:08:37,651 --> 00:08:42,222
Separate but equal. We all
know that is wrong. And

161
00:08:43,156 --> 00:08:46,059
thankfully there was a case
that overturned that type

162
00:08:46,126 --> 00:08:49,863
of discrimination in Brown
versus Board of Education.

163
00:08:49,930 --> 00:08:52,399
>> You're running for
Wisconsin Supreme Court

164
00:08:52,466 --> 00:08:55,802
position. But how much of
what's happening nationally

165
00:08:55,869 --> 00:08:58,839
and President Trump's
impact will will overshadow

166
00:08:58,906 --> 00:09:02,075
this race, as voters take
all that into account when

167
00:09:02,142 --> 00:09:03,977
they're making their
choices at the ballot box?

168
00:09:04,044 --> 00:09:07,181
>> Well, look, I think that
we have an incredible

169
00:09:07,247 --> 00:09:10,350
opportunity in this race,
the people of the state of

170
00:09:10,417 --> 00:09:13,687
Wisconsin, to elect a
justice who is going to

171
00:09:13,754 --> 00:09:17,658
stand up for their rights,
for their freedoms, who is

172
00:09:17,724 --> 00:09:21,862
going to hold the federal
government accountable when

173
00:09:21,929 --> 00:09:25,465
they overreach into the
state? And I'm going to

174
00:09:25,532 --> 00:09:28,402
protect the independence of
Wisconsin. We are an

175
00:09:28,468 --> 00:09:31,338
independent state. We have
our own constitution, our

176
00:09:31,405 --> 00:09:35,142
own laws, and everyone is
subject to those when they

177
00:09:35,209 --> 00:09:38,412
come in the state of
Wisconsin. So I will be a

178
00:09:38,478 --> 00:09:42,216
strong justice making sure
our people are protected

179
00:09:42,282 --> 00:09:47,421
and our state is protected.
>> All right, Judge Taylor,