No.
No, my dad was the mayor of Lodi
for a few years when I was a
kid, and so there
were some other people in our family
that started calling me mayor, your
honor, and it's like, no, no.
Not in my family, I'll tell
you that for sure.
That's right.
Yeah, that was more of a sarcastic,
Your Honor, for me or for him back
then.
All right, and
you're
good, all right.
Well, Madam Chief Justice, thanks
for your time.
Pleasure to be here, Zach.
Let's go back to the start.
Can you imagine what
yourself in 1995 would
think of where you
are today, all these years later?
Well, it's been a journey,
and the journey,
of course, has been traveled by me,
but surrounded by family
and friends and colleagues.
To answer your question, I
don't think I would have seen
myself as I am
today 30 years ago.
That's right.
So Shirley Abrahamson was the first
woman appointed to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, but you were the
first elected.
How far have we come in that it's
been mostly women on the court today
and most people in the modern era
just think it's natural for women
to sit on the bench.
Well, it's been, we've
come a long ways, you know, that's
a perhaps a worn out
phrase, but it holds some
truth to it.
When I got on the circuit court
in Marathon County,
there were only ten
women judges in the entire
state, and I
was one of three north of
Madison and Milwaukee.
When I became
an attorney and went to Wausau,
I remember that very first day.
Being welcomed by my
supervisor with
this.
He said, I want you to know
I have no problem
with a woman trying to do a man's
job. So it has been
a journey from the first
days of being an attorney
and then being a circuit
court judge and till now
we have six
of the seven members
on our court.
Are serving as women.
So that's a long way.
I recall when
I was a circuit court judge,
I would take sometimes my
kids on Saturday mornings to
the court so I could get some work
done. And I remember my
then five-year-old
son John asking,
Mom,
can boys be judges
too, you know, and so...
The importance of having six
women or any women on the
Wisconsin Supreme Court is
to see what is
possible.
In that little five-year-old mind,
the only judge he knew was a woman,
right?
So six out of seven, that's quite
remarkable.
And it really wasn't that
long ago in our nation's history
where it was thought women didn't
have the temperament in order
to sit and be adjusted.
And Sandra Day O'Connor, and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, and you, and
Wisconsin, like, that really has
shifted in terms of what is thought
to be the temperment necessary, it's
not based on gender.
That's right.
In 1875,
then Chief Justice Edward Ryan
of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
denied a motion.
A woman wanted to practice law
before the Supreme Court
to be an attorney.
And in most situations
that would be, as we say today,
a no-brainer. Sure, we'll improve
your motion.
But that was no ordinary
situation because she was a woman.
And She was denied admission for
the very reason...
You're referencing the
opinion of the court said that
the employment as an
attorney for women is really
incompatible with the
sentiments of womanhood and
he ended the opinion,
if these things are to come about we
will take no voluntary part
in making them happen.
So 1875,
and here we are today.
So it was just a couple of years
ago, the night that Janet
Protasewicz was elected to be a
member of the court, I happened to
interview you. And I said, you're up
next, have you thought about whether
you wanna run? And you told me,
I'm going to run and I'm gonna win.
Take us from that moment to your
decision that this was going to be
the end of your time.
Difficult decision,
a decision that took me
many months.
I had engaged
services of someone who was
going to be helping me run the
campaign,
but ultimately as I reflected
I made lists of,
as most people or many people would
do, of yes I want to run
or no I should not and
it was just time to
pass the torch.
I've been on the court for
30 years.
I'm told I have
participated in 28,000
cases, 2,400
oral arguments, 600
or so opinions.
It was time to pass the torch
to begin a new chapter of my life.
I don't look at this as
retirement because I
have a number of things I want to
do and accomplish, but it's a
new Chapter.
What has changed in how the
public views the court?
Because at the beginning of your
time on the bench,
the Wisconsin Supreme Court was
looked at as a model for the nation.
And then a couple decades later,
it was looked as one of the most
dysfunctional courts.
And we've come a few years since
then, but how has that ebb and
flow occurred over time for you?
You're right.
When I got on the court in 1995,
we were considered one of the top
state courts in the nation.
Other state courts would cite our
opinions, and that demonstrates
that they really wanted
to look at us
as leaders in developing the
law.
And they would also follow
some of the administrative
leadership in terms of committees
and new approaches to
access to justice.
That they would embrace after
seeing Wisconsin having
done it.
Those were exciting times,
but you're right.
Over the years, the image
has changed a bit, and that's one of
the reasons I'm so excited about
now, this court,
strong, talented people,
all seven, including the
new Justice, all
7, smart,
engaged.
And I think this is the time when
we will return
to that national reputation.
When you first ran for the court,
there wasn't nearly the public
attention, certainly not the money,
or even the partisan involvement.
You ran as a non-partisan and
criticized one of your opponents for
accepting endorsements from
conservative politicians.
How do you view the
elections that occur today?
Even your successor had to court the
Democratic Party, received millions
in fundraising, and
yet has to try and claim judicial
independence once she takes the
ropes. How has that altered
how the justices see themselves
and how the public sees the court?
In 1995, when I
ran that first race,
I had as my co-chairs
Tony Earle, who was
the former Democratic governor,
and Sue Ann Thompson, who
is the then first lady,
her husband Tommy Thompson.
Serving as my Co-Chairs, I have
strong bipartisan support.
And I've had strong bipartisan
in all of my campaigns, but
it's harder.
This is labeled
as a non-partisan
race. It's in April, right?
That's when we have the non-Partisan
elections.
And I am concerned about
the influx of partisanship
in judicial races.
That's of great concern to
me because I think that it
has a couple of effects.
Number one, it has
an effect on the public trust and
confidence in an independent
judiciary.
And being independent
not only in substance,
but also in impression
is important for
the public trust and confidence of
the people. So I think the
influx of political parties
and the
great amount of money is
of concern.
But let me say this.
Just this past week I was reading a
law review article from 1999
in the Marquette Law
Review. And it's part
of that article.
It was talking about judicial
elections. And it said, oh, they've
become more partisan.
And the amount of money being spent,
I recall in 2005 giving
a major address.
And it was called Justice at the
Crossroads.
And I had
great concern about
the influx of politics.
And by that, I mean partisan
politics and money.
So, the concern
isn't new.
But it has
increased in terms of
amount, both in money and
in political
partisanship.
Could you imagine any
future candidate taking the same
route you did in terms of
a grassroots campaign, a bipartisan
campaign, and still being
successful, getting through a
primary and then getting through
spring election?
When I was considering running,
I am a pragmatist.
I like to look
reality in the face and embrace
it.
And I
knew what the political landscape
was for running.
But I thought that
perhaps I could pull it back
a bit. And that would have been
part of my campaign.
I knew, again,
the reality is on the ground.
But there has to be a middle ground
and that's one of the challenges
that we as a court and
we as the state face to
make sure that our
judicial elections are
elections that really enhance
public trust and
confidence.
Looking back at the timeline of
Supreme Court elections.
It was now Justice
Ziegler's race Which a lot of people
point to the first time there were
multi million dollars spent by third
party Yes to influence the
election and that means every
member of the court now going
forward has been elected in
an era in which Outside
money and partisan politics played a
huge part.
Is that just a fundamental shift
that we have to accept going
forward? Is there anything that
could draw that back in as you said?
Is you could have run and
had that old legacy, but
it doesn't seem to be existing now
for future candidates.
In 2005, I went and
met with the Democratic Party
chair and the Republican Party
chair. I didn't know them
beforehand. I had dinner or
lunch with one and coffee with the
other. And I said,
stay out of these races.
I'm told that I did the
same thing in 2015.
Yes, there is a middle
ground to be achieved, but there's
also, of course,
people looking at different ways
that we can be selecting
our justices and
running campaigns, looking
for reform.
Other states, of, course,
they vary on
how judges and justices
are selected.
Some are appointed
for a certain
term.
Some are elected,
but the kind of election is
different than we have.
It's called retention election.
So I think there are groups that,
and maybe even members of the
legislature, who are looking at
ways to change, perhaps
even the Constitution,
to change the way we select
justices,
statutes that could be changed,
different kinds of regulation that
could employed that would bring
us back from where we are
today.
So you've served with all the
members we're talking about.
In terms of what they're like once
they get on the court, do you see
the influence of party politics and
money from the bench?
I don't.
I see all seven
of us.
Approaching cases, but how
we're supposed to.
We look at the facts, we look
at law.
We may see the law differently.
We may have different ideologies
or life experiences,
but we are unified in
our intent
to serve the people of
this state and honor the rule
of law.
Do you think that frustrates some of
the people who only view
these elections through a
partisan lens?
They say, well, I was encouraged by
my party to support this person.
I donated time or money and now they
get on the bench and they're not
acting like the politicians that I
was told that they are.
That's why civics education is
so important.
Because that kind of attitude, of
course, demonstrates a lack of
understanding of what the third
branch of government, the judicial
branch, is about,
right?
We are not to
follow necessarily public
opinion.
That may be odd for some
to hear, but the executive
branch does that, the legislative
branch does.
But the third branch of government,
co-equal branch of government,
is to be an independent
judiciary.
Following our North Star is the
rule of law.
That's our guiding light.
And that's important for
members of the public to understand
that. We need to reinvigorate
civics education in this state,
I think, and elsewhere.
But even with that North Star,
who is elected to the bench
matters.
And that does change the outcome of
some of these decisions.
Absolutely, it does.
I mean, I can tell you, Zach,
I'm writing fewer dissents in
the last two years, right?
But the process remains
the same.
That is, looking at the
facts, getting briefs,
having oral argument, discussing
the facts and the law, and
ultimately writing opinions.
That process remains
the same.
How do you view taking
a look at precedent, especially
since you've been in a minority that
wrote a lot of dissents and you've
in a majority that's written them
the opinions, there
have been some cases that have
overturned precedent and there are
others that have observed them,
whether you've agreed with them or
not, but you, I'm certainly,
cite a lot cases of if
only the makeup of the court had
been slightly different, that
decision would have been completely
opposite.
Yes, the law has
certain elements
to consider if you are
going to overrule precedent.
Those include, let's say the United
States Supreme Court came out
with a new law that reflects
a different approach than what
we had embraced
in Wisconsin in our case law.
So if the law has
changed, is
one reason. Another reason...
If it's our precedent has
proven to be unworkable.
Another is whether it's unsound
in principle.
So the very fact that there is a
new member on the court should
not, and in my opinion, is
not reason for
precedent to be overturned.
I believe strongly in
the importance of precedent.
I may disagree with
a prior opinion.
But once it is precedent,
we are bound by precedent unless
those recognized elements
are fulfilled, which then
allow for cases to
be reviewed and changed.
The legal landscape surrounding the
court has changed as well.
The amount of groups that exist only
to file lawsuits with the best
hand-picked cases and plaintiffs
involved in order to find a
crack in precedent to overturn
something.
How does that change how you
react from the bench when you know
that this was hand-selected
just in order try and reach the
opposite conclusion?
Your question brings to mind
something my husband once said
to me because I
mentioned being involved in 28,000
cases and all the oral arguments.
He said, well, hasn't it
all been decided already?
There's so many cases, but the
answer is no.
I get thrilled by
the presence of good
arguments and good attorneys
because they
Help the court develop
the law.
And when new arguments are brought,
then we take a look at the
issue in the way it's
framed, citing different
cases and different issues.
So for the first couple decades of
your time on the bent, it's probably
safe to say that the public
attention to some of these decisions
weren't as high profile and
therefore the outside influence
wasn't as important.
As the prominence of the court
to solving political questions rose,
the amount of outside agitators
and money poured in to help
influence who sat and made those
political decisions.
Has that?
Corrupted the way the public looks
at the court away the court acts or
is it the court's still the same
It's just people are paying
attention and trying to put more
money into it. The court is
should be steady as she goes,
right?
What has happened, at least in
the most recent years, we've had a
high concentration of what you would
call political cases,
high profile cases.
A political scientist at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison
opined that the
reason for that is if you
have the other two branches of
government that are agreeing
or working.
With one another, that those
issues land on
the desks of the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And I think there's some
real validity to that observation.
I would prefer on occasion
a little more mundane
approach, with cases
coming to us, dealing with
issues of, and I don't want to
call anything mundane, so I'll be
careful how I label the issues, but
the normal issues that you
would expect.
But we've had a high concentration
of these political issues, not
that we go out and seek them.
That's not the way the court works.
We wait.
Cases come to us.
And once presented to us,
then we decide whether or not
it's important for us
to take the case, meeting the
criteria that we have in
the statute for taking
cases and our rules.
As the public's awareness of the
importance of the court has changed
over time, has that
actually changed the mechanisms
of the Court?
Or from the inside, is it still
operating? You talked about it still
in the same track.
Is that still present?
Or do you think that that high
profile nature and people selecting
cases has impacted what
does come before you?
Well, you mentioned
that now we
have, on the legal landscape,
law firms and attorneys who are
just poised to
look at political issues,
try to find a case and bring it
before the Supreme Court.
So that has changed.
We haven't had that in Wisconsin
in the past, but
the process remains
the same.
Those cases come to us.
And we deal with them the same
way that we would any other
case.
I won't ask you to pick any favorite
cases because you've got a lot of
them to choose from.
But are there any important areas or
themes of the law that you're proud
to have been a part of developing
over the years?
Absolutely.
I think areas of securing
individual rights has been
very important,
holding government accountable,
right? That's part of the role
of the third branch of government
to review the
acts, the
legislation of
the other branches.
I mean, that's the unique role that
the and visioned
regarding the role.
Of the third branch of government.
And I think also access
to justice, I've
written not only opinions regarding
access to justice,
but also administratively
been involved in promoting
access to justice for the people
of this state.
You are in the majority and you're
working to develop the opinion
that will formally be published.
What's going on in the background in
terms of are you trying to reach out
to members in order to make the
majority opinion larger?
Because we've seen a few cases where
it's been 7-0 or 5-2
as most recently came out.
Does that carry more significance
than a 4-3 narrow split?
Yes, I think that it's
important to be, as we
say, to jurors as a
circuit court judge when
we send the jury off
to decide a case.
We end with, we urge you to be
unanimous if you can.
And of course that's a
desired goal.
But let me also say, if
we were always unanimous,
then you would only need
one us, and six justices
would be superfluous.
We do have different
opinions and different approaches
in the way that we
interpret the law, in terms of
the way we apply the law I should
say.
So, it's a
wonderful process that's
bent on staying
true to the rule of law.
We may see it differently, but that
is our North Star as
I said earlier.
So should the public look at
a 4-3 case differently than 5-2
or 6-1?
Well, I think most of us
try to bring in
as many as we can.
After oral argument,
we go to the conference room,
we discuss the case, we take
tentative votes, and we listen.
And I do. I'll tell you how I do it,
but I think the other justices do it
the same. We listen to the comments.
We take notes of what the other
justice's think is
important.
And then, if I were writing the
majority, I would make sure that
I want to get that in.
So I can make sure to keep
that justice as part of
the majority.
So then we circulate tentative
drafts and we get comments from
the other justices.
This is part of a normal process.
And if a justice wants a change
here or add more
here, I do my
best to honor their request
because it's important,
I think, to have as
many justices in a
court. On an
opinion.
If you have so many
splintered opinions, then the
integrity of the precedent is
diminished.
I just wanna clarify something we
had talked about earlier about the
future of how we might put
justices on the bench.
Do you support changing the
constitution to eliminate elections
or alter elections?
Or you talked about what other
states do. There's a lot of options
out there. Do you have a proposal
that you would support?
I don't currently have any proposal
that I support, but I do
support looking at all
sorts of different options, as
I know groups and
legislators are doing right now,
because we have a challenge
before us and the challenge is to
make the selection
of justices and
the campaigns, if
we continue with campaigns,
better, not for the sake of
making a campaign better.
But for the sake of the 5.8
million people who call
Wisconsin home,
they deserve a
judiciary that they have trust
and confidence in.
How might that have changed you
becoming a member of the Supreme
Court? Because back in 1995,
you may not have been either
selected to become on a list or
appointed to this process.
You had to push your way onto
it.
That's right,
and about three weeks ago,
I was on an international
webinar regarding
election of
justices around the world.
Now there are not many countries
that elect their
state Supreme Court justices
or however they divide,
whether it's a province or an
area, the United
States is one of the
And I made the comment then
to this webinar,
attendees, that
I probably
wouldn't be on the Supreme
Court if it were not
through election.
I was not one of the favored
people. I mean, I didn't have
inside track information
or path, right?
It was good old fashioned
retail campaigning around
the state and I won.
I am not quick to
say let's get rid of elections,
not at all.
I am quick to see how
they can become
better and if
we can't make
them what they should then
let's look at other options.
And another technical issue that's
been coming up a lot is recusal
rules.
What is your approach, and do you
think there should be a larger rule
that governs everybody?
I think that we as a court have
to take a look at the recusal
rules.
Our recusal rule was written
verbatim by
a lobbyist group
around 2010.
I wrote a dissent
to that. It was a strong dissent.
In fact, it was covered in a
lot of national news.
We have to revisit our
recusal rules to
make them.
Rules that I can
be proud of and others can be proud
of. Sometimes our recusal rules
have been referred to as
getting a D or
F grade and so let's
take a look at them, improve them
because it's an important part
of the judicial process.
It goes hand in glove with
judicial campaigns and
what is said on judicial campaigns
and then you have recusal rules.
In part to help balance that
when appropriate.
It's a difficult issue.
It's very nuanced.
So I think it's time to
take a look at them again.
Especially in light of the last two
campaigns, Janet Prudice-Awitz
was attacked by Republicans
for statements she made during her
campaign, has been repeatedly asked
to recuse herself.
Is there ever a moment where other
members of the court advise someone,
or is it simply left to them alone
and then that is just their
decision?
Um...
It's a, I don't want to get in the
weeds too much in this.
The decision, according to our
rules, is the
decision of the justice alone.
Period. It's clear.
Yet, there's a case called
Caperton, C-A-P-E-R-T-O-N,
that sets a standard
of due process
for the court to
take a look at the
issue also.
Generally speaking it is the
decision of the justice
alone, but there are times
when there is
such a substantial risk of
actual bias, that's the
standard set by the United
States Supreme Court in Caperton,
that it rises to a due process
violation.
One of the other things that has
changed with the structure of the
court in your time is the
Chief Justice is no longer based
on seniority.
You are now the Chief justice, but
you were elected by your fellow
members. Does that make it more
significant or do you wish it had
still been the way it always was?
But there are pros and cons.
I was against the constitutional
amendment, and I was again the
constitutional amendment because I
thought and still believe
that it was
initiated to
get rid of former
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson,
full stop.
I think there's a lot to be said
about retaining the
seniority.
Looked at the way other states
select their Chief Justice
and the tenure of the Chief
Justice position and
come to believe that
although there is merit and
certainly it sounds good.
Oh, let's elect our Chief
Justice for a
two-year term or a longer
term.
Maybe limit to one
two- year term.
I still believe that seniority
is the better way to go, but
The people have spoken and this is
the way it is now.
How does it feel for you to end your
career as Chief Justice?
Wonderful, in a word,
wonderful.
Chief Justice N.
Walsh-Bradley, thank you for your
time. Thanks, Zach.
We are good. Thank you so much for
your time. I really appreciate it.
Wow, it was good chatting with you. And thank you
for your service.
Thank you.
I didn't want to get too deep into
the weeds on some cases, but it
would have been more fun to delve
into those, but for our audience,
it's best to keep it broad.
Yes, that's right.
And I understand that.
You know, I was thinking about this.
I was wondering if you
might be talking about security
issues, and that probably
crossed your mind.
But here is a bit of information.
Thirty years ago, and I
think I may, and Pat
Crooks, Justice Crooks may have
been the first of your televised
debates, and
after that debate.
I got it.
Contact from a Warsaw
attorney, because I was still
a sitting judge in Warsaw.
He said, I just want
you to know that a client
of mine, he did criminal defense,
a client of mine was sitting
in the audience during that debate
with a gun and he came to
kill you, but voices told
him not to.
Now, that kind of chilled
me a bit, and
when actually I won and
then... Had my investiture.
It was loaded with security.
So security is
always of concern,
but boy now, Zach,
the threats that are just
intimidation is
just very
pronounced. And we have, as we were
talking about, some high profile
political cases,
and some of the justices get more
threats than others.
But it's a great area
of concern.
Yeah, we've done some reporting
on that.
I just wanted to keep that on the
news side.
Yes, well, yeah,
and I appreciate that, but I'm just
I was thinking about that
and thinking about that debate
of 30 years
ago with public
television there.
We'll find the tape.
No.
I think I was okay.
My mom was in the audience.
I had a lot of family members in the
audience, but apparently there was
another person in the audience that
should not have been there.
You just don't know in this
job. You don't in any job.
As of late, just because of the
public dialog is
so toxic, isn't it?
It's surprising even when
members of the legislature announce,
like, oh no, I carry on the floor.
Yes.
And it's like, I guess I never even
thought of the Senate president
having a firearm while he's up
there.
I think Gableman used to, as
they say, pack.
I won't respond to
your comment, but yes,
and maybe another
justice does too.
Are you disappointed that you
weren't able to stay on long enough
for Gableman's case to come
all the way back up?
Do you think I'm
going to answer that question?
Actually, I'm relieved.
I'm really that I don't
have that case before me.
You know, the stipulation,
and we'll see what the court does
with it.
The stipulation is for three years.
That's pretty hefty,
and who knows?
Well, Robin Boss was all
for disbarment.
I know,
yeah.
That will be interesting, it will
be interesting to see.
One of the reasons I say that is
because I
am becoming probably
the lone
voice on this court.
This is inside information, are you
ready? Plug one ear.