That's the way I feel standing in
the middle of my own slew.
My own business here.
I've got all kinds of plans for this
joint, plans of my own, all my own
ideas.
Maybe we can get matching
tablecloths and napkins,
and we can redecorate the
powder room. And get plenty of
powder in there, because it stinks.
Oh, and I'll take down them fightin'
pictures and we'll put up George and
Mar-
No, no, no.
Don't put George and Martha up,
I mean, pictures of George and
Martin, they always look like they
don't want nobody to drink.
No, no, no.
Eat it. Eat. No, eat it.
Don't leave while he's out.
Have they curtains on the door?
No, I don't know. No curtains,
Edith. We ain't running the night
street. Oh, and we'll get rid of the
pinball machine, cause that's
gambling. Edith, you committed a
pinball-machine and a guy who smells
like garlic will come around, kiss
me on both cheeks, and put a hole in
my head.
No, I didn't do nothing.
I ain't even, no, I ain'n't the
putter yet, I'm putting, that's
enough, I don't want to hear no
more. This is my boss, I
am the boss of this bar, and I'm the
boss and I am a guy that says what
goes. But you made me a
partner.
When did I do that?
When you forged my name on
the horse.
All in the Family was recorded on
tape before a live audience.
This is catchy comedy.
Laughs are plenty tonight.
You just turn on that set and do the
rest.
Tonight, a WISN-12
Commitment 2026 election
special.
A consequential race on the ballot.
Who will voters choose as
Wisconsin's next Supreme Court
Justice?
Tonight, an unprecedented event.
The candidates together for their
first and only debate.
Each with sharply differing
viewpoints.
Appellate Court Judge Maria Lazar.
We need a judge and a justice
who's independent-minded
and yet able to stand
up for the law.
A former Waukesha County Circuit
Court Judge and former Assistant
Attorney General under Governor
Scott Walker.
If you're trying to legislate from
the bench, that's completely out of
bounds.
And appellate court judge
Chris Taylor.
My commitment is
to make sure that people have
a fair process, that their rights
are protected.
A former Dane County Circuit Court
judge and former Democratic state
lawmaker.
Not just protecting people's rights,
but checking the power of the other
branches of government.
Tonight the exclusive
head-to-head matchup when people
describe you as the conservative
candidate
Well, it's somewhat amusing.
When people describe you as the
liberal candidate, how do you
respond to that?
I care about people's rights.
And now, live from the
WISN TV studios in
downtown Milwaukee, tonight's
moderators, WISM-12
political director Matt Smith and
upfront co-host, 12 news anchor
Jaron Jordan.
Good evening everyone and welcome.
Thank you for your patience and that
of the candidates for sticking with
us through tonight's severe weather.
We are live in our WISN 12 news
studio.
We thank our audience across
Wisconsin for joining us for the
first and only televised debate
between the two candidates for
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
With us right now, two state
appellate court judges, the
Honorable Maria Lazar and the
Honorable Chris Taylor.
Thank you both for being here.
You are so very welcome.
Thank you so much.
The top vote getter on Tuesday will
serve a 10-year term on the state
Supreme Court, filling the seat of
conservative justice Rebecca
Bradley, who is not seeking
reelection.
First tonight, a few ground rules.
This is a debate, but we'll be
having a conversation.
We'll be discussing the key issues
facing Wisconsin.
Candidates are asked to state their
positions, stay on topic,
and to be concise.
The candidates may speak to each
other, but will manage the time on
any given topic and move the
conversation along, if necessary.
At the end, each candidate will make
a closing statement.
We flipped a coin to determine who
will get the first question.
So let's get started with Judge
Taylor.
Here we are just five days out from
election day, and already some
251,000 Wisconsinites
have already cast their ballots.
Yet a good number say they don't
know much about this race and they
don't know who they'll vote for.
Judge Taylor, with control of the
court not at stake, tell us what
is at stake in this race.
Well, first of all, thank you so
much for hosting this debate.
I am so happy to be here, and I
really appreciate your flexibility
in rescheduling this debate when I
was battling with the kidney stone
last week. So thanks so
much. Well, people should
care, and think they do care
about this race.
I have traveled all over the state
of Wisconsin for the last 11
months. And I have
met Wisconsinites from every
corner of this state who are hungry
for a government that works for
them and prioritizes them
and they are hungry for a
justice that's going to stand up
for them, protect their rights,
protect our democracy and protect
our elections.
Those things have never been more
important.
I have dedicated my entire
30-year legal career
to protecting people's
rights and freedoms and making
sure as a judge that they
get equal justice when
they are in the courtroom.
I have been a lawyer in private
practice, the law and policy
director for Planned Parenthood, a
legislator, and for the last six
years a judge.
My passion throughout my entire life
is justice.
I am running to be a justice for
the people of Wisconsin.
Judge Lazar, with control of the
court not at stake in this race,
what is at stake in this raise?
Well, again, thank you so very much
for inviting us and thank you to
everyone in my home city, Wisconsin,
for watching.
What's at stake in this race?
Justice, integrity, independence.
I am running to stop
the erosion of faith in our state
Supreme Court.
The choice in this race could not be
more clear.
On the one hand, you have a judge,
an experienced judge, who's been on
the bench for more than 12 years,
protecting the rights of everyone in
this state.
And on the other hand, we have
a radical extreme legislator,
who is known as the most liberal of
the 99 in that assembly,
who now, as a judicial activist,
wants to put her views.
Her values and her agenda
in the court above the law.
I am running so that we can
restore independence and I am the
only credible candidate in this race
who can do that and so that's why
I'm looking forward to being
Wisconsin's new justice for the next
ten years.
You both describe your judicial
philosophies differently.
Judge Taylor, you've said your
philosophy centers around people and
equal justice.
Judge Lazar, you described your
judicial philosophy as originalism
with a touch of textualism.
Judge Lazar I'm curious, why
is Judge Taylor's philosophy not
fit for the court?
Well, in this race, you have to
understand that we need a judge who
loves the law, not a judge
that loves their causes or
their beliefs or their agendas.
I am going to be a justice
on this court who is looking to
put only the law and interpret the
law as it's written.
I do not intend to follow any
mandate or agenda or to
legislate from the bench.
I am actually going to look at what
is there. When people come in front
of my court, they know
two things. One, I always
treat them with respect, and number
two, they always have a
fair and full opportunity to be
heard, and I decide the case only
on the law and the facts.
Judge Taylor, why is Judge Lazar's
philosophy not fit for the court?
Well, first of all, Judge
Lazar is the only person in
this race who has brought an
extreme right-wing political
agenda to the bench.
She has refused to
follow precedent.
She ruled
to release...
Personal, private voting
information to a right-wing
group that tried to overturn
our election.
Thank goodness she was reversed by
the state Supreme Court.
She has been reversed repeatedly
because she refuses to
follow the law.
She has a very specific
agenda that favors big corporations
and right-wings special interests.
I don't know of one
public judicial endorsement that she
has had. In contrast,
I have the support of over 160
judges throughout the state of
Wisconsin, including the
majority of our own
colleagues on the Court of Appeals.
But let me get to your question.
My opponent has described
her judicial philosophy as being
originalist.
What this means is she believes
you have to go back centuries
to what the
Constitution to
go back to 1788 when the
Constitution was written or when one
of the amendments was
passed like the 14th Amendment was
passed in 1868.
She wants to go back and
basically say if the right wasn't
recognized like the right to
abortion, if it wasn't recognize
in the Constitution or if it was
not recognized in society, it does
not exist.
Judge Lazar, you're shaking your
head.
And no, and this is exactly
what I faced through this entire
race. This race is a race for
a judicial seat, not a
legislative seat.
My opponent is using the same old
political playbook, and I will tell
you the problem with that is
we do not want a
legislator, we cannot afford
a legislater on the bench.
As to my, the statements that I've
been reversed, you know, I guess
when my opponent has a few more
years of judicial experience,
she'll understand that being
reversed is a part of being an
independent judiciary.
And the Supreme Court, the
four liberal majority on this
Supreme Court was reversed nine
to zero by the United States
Supreme Court in a case about
religious freedom Catholic
charities.
I have a really good friend who's a
judge and a mentor to me throughout
my 12 years on this bench,
and she said you're actually not a
true judge until you've been
reversed.
So I take.
The problem with what my
opponent just said is she was
reversed in a case called
Wisconsin Voter Alliance v.
C Court. She was not reversed on the
merits. She was admonished
by our state Supreme Court because
she ignored precedent.
She even said in her opinion she
was ignoring precedent.
That is not what a judge is supposed
to do. She is the one who
has brought a distinctly political
agenda to this court.
She has said it on the campaign.
And she's running to be a
conservative justice.
She is running with an agenda to
restrict access to reproductive
health care. It's in her own
commercial.
I have to respond to that.
I have never said I'm running as a
conservative candidate.
I've said it's independent and
that's what I am.
The Secort case had to do with
procedure and the state Supreme
Court sent it back to me and I
changed the way I responded and that
was fine.
As to reproductive rights, my
opponent is fooling everyone in
the state of Wisconsin.
The state Supreme court has ruled on
abortion. It is final.
It's a 20-week compromise and I've
sat as a judge that I will respect
and honor that.
My opponent, when she was a
legislator, when she tried to pass
over 243 bills
and only six passed, one
of them was about abortion and she
wanted it to be abortion.
At any time.
Are set aboard.
On the ballot, my po—
to the contrary, believes it is.
We will get to abortion in a minute
first. We're going to talk about the
current state of the court
Yeah, the winner of this race will
fill the seat of retiring Justice
Rebecca Bradley.
In her decision not to seek
re-election, she said, quote, for
years I have warned that under the
control of judicial activists, the
court will make itself more powerful
than the legislature, more powerful
than the governor.
That warning, she says, went
unheeded and Wisconsin has only
seen the beginning of what is an
alarming shift from thoughtful,
principled judicial service toward
bitter partisanship, personal
attacks, and political gamesmanship.
Judge Taylor, is Justice Bradley's
assessment correct? And if so, how
would you fix that?
Well, look, when I was in the
legislature...
I saw bills
that I thought were unconstitutional
be passed.
The problem was we had
a conservative
state Supreme Court that
was in the pocket of right-wing
extremists. They would not hold
the legislative branch accountable.
What I will do as a justice
is be fiercely
independent. I have a strong
judicial record.
I have never once
been reversed.
I heard thousands of
cases as a circuit court judge.
I had dozens and dozens
of complicated jury trials.
I've written dozens of published
decisions on the Court of Appeals.
I am scrupulous in
applying the law.
And I have a spine
of steel when it comes to
making sure people's rights and
freedoms are protected.
So I bring a collaborative
nature to the court.
I've been endorsed by almost every
single judge who's ever worked with
me. They know how hard I work.
They know I like listening to other
people's opinions.
That makes us a stronger
court.
So I bring a
strong collaborative spirit.
I am open to considering other
potential.
And I think our court is on the
right path in protecting people's
rights and safeguarding our
democracy.
Judge Lazar, is Justice Bradley's
assessment of the court correct and
if so, how would you fix it?
Well, I believe, first of all, I do
have to respond and say that I have
posted endorsements and they do
include the Milwaukee Police
Association, Fraternal Order of the
Police, and many, many judges as
well. But with regard to what
Justice Bradley said, I see that
there is a concern by people in the
state. And when I go and talk to
people across the state, since I've
started running in October, they do
tell me they're concerned that they
will not get a fair and
full opportunity to be heard,
and that one side or another is
going to get a prejudgment
in the case.
And I will tell you the concern that
I have.
It's that when someone walks into
the court, it's not whether the
court is right or left.
You need a court that is neutral.
You need court that decides things
only based on the law and
the facts. And that's what I have
done my entire life as a
judge, and it's what will do.
We need to have a collaborative
court. I agree with my opponent
in that. But we also
need to have people who will stand
up and stand up for
the rights for the laws and what
is right in the state of Wisconsin
With news this week, let's move to
redistricting and talk about that,
the geographic lines in the state
that determine who represents voters
in Congress.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel
dismissed a challenge to Wisconsin's
congressional maps.
The circuit court judges said they
had no authority to supersede the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
When the court appointed these two
separate panels last year,
conservative justices Annette
Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley
dissented, arguing those same
concerns. Justice Taylor given
this week's ruling should this
second set the second three
judge panel considering a
separate lawsuit to the
congressional map should they
conclude the same that this panel
did this past week
Well, I'm not going to comment on
pending cases.
Those cases could come up to the
Court of Appeals.
They could certainly go up to
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
What I will say is that
I think it's so incredibly
important that every citizen
who is eligible to vote.
Has the right to pick their
elected representatives, not
the other way around.
When my opponent was representing
Governor Scott Walker and
defending legislative
maps that were drafted in secret
that some election experts
called the most gerrymandered
maps in the nation,
I was working in the legislature
on a nonpartisan
redistricting process.
So I have worked throughout
my time on
making this process fair,
taking out the partisanship,
while my opponent was defending
what some election experts called
the most partisan maps in 40
years.
Judge Lazar on this three judge
panel should the second panel
conclude the same?
I will agree as well that I can't
say what they should or shouldn't
do. I will note that it was
very unusual to send it to
those panels, and I will also
address redistricting that my
opponent has raised.
The map in Wisconsin has straight
lines, and it follows communities
of interest, and it followed the
Constitution, and the only thing
that a federal court did in
that map was remove one line
from sideways to the other
way. If you want to see a real
gerrymandered map, then I propose
everyone watching go look at the map
of Illinois, which a reporter just
told me I think a week ago looks
like a giant octopus swallowing
the city of Chicago.
That is a gerrymander map.
That is not what we have in
Wisconsin.
We follow the rules here.
And when I was at the Department of
Justice, I did my best
as a lawyer to advocate for
my clients, which were the state of
Wisconsin and any individual.
I was not hired by, nor
did I work for, any governor
or any legislator.
I worked for the Department of
Justice in Wisconsin.
Judge Taylor, before this week's
ruling, Democratic Congressman Mark
Pocan, who is supporting your
campaign, had said that the court is
dragging its feet and that it may
cost us the ability to have fair
maps ahead of the midterms.
Are the current congressional maps
fair?
Look, this is a pending case.
We do not, as judges, we
cannot comment on pending cases
or express an opinion about
a case that's pending that could
come before us.
But I am committed to
making sure that every
eligible voter in
the state of Wisconsin has
the ability to pick their
elected representatives, not the
other way around.
That's not how supposed to work.
So that is my commitment and
you know I believe that
everyone's vote should count.
Votes should not be elevated
and votes should not be
diminished based on the
drawing of legislative maps.
Judge Lazar, you've written as a
judge, I believe the people's
representatives are responsible for
drawing maps, and the courts are
responsible for making sure those
maps follow the law.
So do the current congressional maps
follow the law?
And again I would agree with my
opponent that I can't comment on the
exact maps since they are the
subject of two lawsuits, but
I will say that people have
to understand in the state of
Wisconsin that I agree every
vote, eligible vote, should count.
And I think that if you're looking
at the maps and the circumstances
now, it's
highly People have to
start circulating papers this
month in April and you can't be
doing that if you don't know who
you're going to be representing.
When I was campaigning, it was
interesting.
I met a gentleman who told me
that he had not moved in the last 10
years but that because of the
changes in the maps that he has
three different people representing
him and that's also a concern
and an issue that should not happen.
We should be drawing these maps once
every 10 years after the
census and moving on and
doing that and they should be drawn
by our people's representatives,
the legislature and approved by
the governor and then they come to
the court.
Let's talk about elections.
This week, President Trump signed an
executive order targeting federal
elections. The order, in part,
would require proof of citizenship
by creating a state citizenship
list and limit mail-in voting.
Democrats have already filed a
lawsuit looking to block that.
It comes, though, as Congress
debates the SAVE Act, which would
also require nationwide voter ID.
The president has also said he wants
a ban on mail- in voting, all
of which could end up before the
courts.
Judge Lazar, in a press release
referring to the SAV Act, you've
promised to uphold Wisconsin's voter
ID law and said federal gridlock
continues to stall common-sense
election integrity measures.
Do you support every provision in
the SAVE Act including a possible
ban on mail-in voting?
No.
No, I don't.
What I was talking about and what I
stand for is the fact that in
Wisconsin, the citizens of this
state voted to have a voter ID
requirement when you vote, and
that's what I would uphold.
What I look at, and some of the,
and I actually believe that early
voting is responsible and
important and necessary and
vital. And I think that mail-in
voting, the same.
So I don't stand for all the things
that they're throwing in now or
talking about now federally.
I think it's important that we
tell people in the state of
Wisconsin that our elections are
safe, they're secure, and that their
votes count.
And that's the key important thing
that we need to address in
this state.
Judge Taylor, you've previously
called Wisconsin's voter ID law one
of the most extreme in the country
saying its true intention is
suppressing our ability to vote.
Last April, more than 60% of
Wisconsin voters approved enshrining
the state's voter I.D.
Law into the state constitution.
How did you vote on that?
When I was in the legislature?
On the constitutional amendment last
April.
Oh, well, how would I do in the
ballot box is nobody's business.
But I can say that it is
the law of the land, and I
will implement the law the land.
I'm glad to hear my
opponent say that every vote should
count because she has been endorsed
in the past by
people who led the charge in
trying to overturn our 2020
election.
And that is very alarming.
She will not say whether
the Trump v Biden lawsuit
that was filed in
2020 in an attempt to overturn
our election, which was defeated
by our state Supreme Court by one
vote. My opponent will not whether
that was the right decision.
I am committed to making
sure that all citizens
who are eligible to vote can
cast a ballot.
I am very concerned by
what I hear from the federal
government.
We have the ability as
a state, it's our authority to
administer our elections and
it seems to me that the federal
government is trying to
infringe on the independence of
the state of Wisconsin and that is
very concerning.
Any response to that?
Twenty. Yes.
I would say that I'm not
people who may have endorsed me in
the past. I'm not responsible for
all of their thoughts their ideas
that's absolutely absurd and
that's not a way to look at things
and and my endorsements this year
as I've told you have been
very limited I put only
the people recently the law
enforcement endorsements and my
judicial endorsements on my website
that's who I've been endorsed by
those are the endorsements I've
sought this time with respect to
elections I agree every
vote should count and I am hundred
percent for that and I also believe
that we have to uphold the voter
ID law that the citizens
of this state passed
overwhelmingly and I also would
note that when my opponent was in
the legislature she did her best to
dismantle those protections
for our safe and fair elections
and that is not acceptable.
That's not true.
That is absolutely not true I did
everything in my power as a
legislator to make sure that
people had the ability to
vote I it's
interesting. My opponent will not
answer the question about
whether she thinks the Trump v Biden
case was correctly decided
that was a
Lawsuit brought by President Trump
to overturn our 2020
election There was no allegation by
the way in that suit of voter fraud
It was all on these procedures.
That was only defeated by
our state Supreme Court by one
vote. Our election hung in the
balance by one.
My opponent will not say
whether that was correctly decided
or whether our election should have
been overturned.
And I will say our election
was valid,
that Joe Biden did win,
and that that's the state of the law
in our country, and I support that
100%.
I think we should be looking
forward, I don't think we shouldn't
be looking back.
I agree 100%
of who won that election and how
it was won.
You have both weighed in on
election issues as appeals court
judges and the Supreme Court has
weighed in as well from President
Trump challenging the results of the
2020 election to Governor Evers
attempting to postpone in-person
voting during the pandemic.
So, Judge Taylor, what election-related
issues should the court be prepared
to address ahead of the midterm
elections?
Well, I'm very concerned
that we might have efforts to
suppress the vote.
I don't know what's going to happen
with the SAVE Act.
I think that could cause a lot of
chaos.
I think there could be, I am hoping
that we will continue
to allow mail
and voting.
That would cause complete havoc.
But look, this is why we need a
strong state Supreme Court that's
going hold the federal government
accountable.
My opponent is going to be a rubber
stamp for the federal government.
Gentlemen.
I just absolutely have to
disagree. I have never been a
rubber stamp for any side
whatsoever.
I'm not beholden to any party.
I'm a member of a party.
My opponent is a Democrat.
She said as recently as
March of this year to a group of
people as reported that she is
still a Democrat and the
problem is when you look at this
election and you look at who's
donating money, my opponent has
almost three quarters of a million
dollars from the Democratic Party
and she still to this day will
not say whether she will recuse if
they bring a case up in front of the
state Supreme Court.
She's also not said if she
will be recuse, if the organization
where she was the policy advisor
Planned Parenthood brings a case
up in from the state's Supreme Court
and I will tell you when you look
at recusal the easy way for
people in the state to understand it
if you're picking a jury and
the jury member was a member
of a party or was
a member the company that's bringing
the lawsuit They're not on that
jury. Why would we want them on
that? Why would want them that case
as a judge?
We'll get to her cues on them and
any direct response.
Sure, absolutely.
Well, I am so proud
of the tens of thousands
of grassroots supporters I
have supporting my campaign,
unlike my opponent.
My average contribution is
less than $100.
My opponent is being supported
by right-wing mega-donors.
That is who is for supporting her
campaign.
And they know she's going to be
their rubber stamp.
So I am really proud.
I want to run a strong grassroots
campaign.
My campaign is about the people of
the state of Wisconsin.
My campaign and my
whole commitment
to people in running is to be
a justice for the people,
not the super wealthy,
not the billionaires and the
millionaires, not the big
corporations, but the people of
the state of Wisconsin.
I have to respond.
My opponent has raised over five
plus million dollars from outside
groups.
Seventy-three percent of her money
comes from Wisconsin.
The rest is not.
I have not raised that amount of
money. I've always been an
independent judge, independent
justice. I have never stood
for any party or any person
other than the facts and the law.
My opponent still is not telling you
whether she'd recuse from those
mega-donors who donating to her
campaign.
Let's talk about recusal,
broader conflicts of interest here.
Chief Justice Jill Korofsky will
hold public hearings exploring
a potential new recusal rule
essentially forcing justices to
remove themselves from cases over a
potential conflict.
Currently justices are not required
to recuse based solely on
campaign contributions, endorsements
or independent expenditures from
a party. Justice Lazar,
do you support a stricter recusal
rule and how far should it go?
Well, I'm glad that
there is a recusal petition filed
by several retired judges in
front of the state Supreme Court.
Recusal is such a difficult
situation and it's something
where you have to not only recuse
if you believe you have a bias,
but you have recuse you believe
that people looking at the case
would not think that they're getting
a fair opportunity to be heard.
My opponent has tons of
money coming in and has ties
to groups and has not said whether
she will recuse for those.
She tried to pass a law when she was
in the legislature that said that
and now she's disavowing that.
The key thing that I think is
important is recusal really
is tied to the integrity
of the judge or the justice.
And I have spent the last 12
years as a judge.
Showing that I have that integrity
and that independence I have
ruled against the state the district
attorney's office My old employer
the Department of Justice I have
rules against things that my
opponent would believe are
right-wing special interest groups
And I don't see the same thing
coming from my opponent who has
said to this day that she is an
advocate and an activist Which
should disqualify her right
off the bat from this
That is an absolute lie.
An absolute lie, I have
an incredible strong
judicial record.
Never have I said I'm
an activist.
Never have said I
am an advocate on the bench.
That is totally, totally improper.
Do you support a stricter recusal
rule and how far should that rule
go?
I certainly think we should consider
it and I'm the only candidate
running who wants to hear from
the public on this issue.
I believe we should have public
hearings and let the public weigh
in. It is so critically
important that as judges
we have the confidence of
the public and so I am
looking forward to hearings and I do
want to hear from them.
Why should the public believe that
you can police yourself?
I mean, that's a, it's, you know, we
have a judicial commission.
I mean we do.
That you can file complaints against
judges. We can get complaints
filed against us.
So it's not like the federal system.
It's not the U.S.
Supreme Court.
So we do have a system for
complaints.
It's, it has been a
system that I don't
think is perfect by any means.
I think we need to re-look at this
system and try to make it stronger
so that people have more confidence
in what we do.
Just as our quick response and to
the point of the white voters should
believe that you could police
yourself
Well, I think looking at my record,
the 12 years that I've been on this
bench, and all the rotations that I
have been in, and the fact that
I lived my life as an
open book, you can go on my website,
judgemarielazar.com, you can
see what I've written about, about
my life, my opinions, where
I stand on things, I recognize
that the state of Wisconsin wants to
hear from their judges and justices
and their candidates, but I think
that you have to look at the
integrity of the individual.
And I have been,
and I will always say, a total
Girl Scout in this matter.
In fact, I was.
And I think that's so important.
You do have to trust the judge.
I am a lawyer's judge.
The lawyers who appear in front of
me respect me and appreciate
me. I have had no issues
whatsoever. And I will continue to
do that as a justice for the next
ten years.
Well, abortion is again an issue in
this race. You both have talked
about it on the campaign trail and
in campaign ads.
In a 4-3 decision led by the court's
liberal majority last summer, the
court liberal justices invalidated
the state's 1849 abortion
ban. To both of you, Judge Lazar
will start with you.
Would you have voted with the court'
liberal or conservative justices on
that and why?
I think in that case,
I'm not going to comment where I
would have voted. I didn't really
follow all the briefs and everything
that happened.
But I will tell you this, I totally
100 percent
respect the decision that was made.
I will honor that 20-week
compromise.
I think that it falls within
the parameters of where people in
the state believe it should be.
And if they don't, the answer is
to go to the legislature and the
governor, not the courts.
My opponent, when she was in
the legislature, said that she
thought that it shouldn't be 20
weeks or any type of restriction
whatsoever, but that abortion should
be allowed at any time
during the pregnancy, up to
the end.
And she still stands with that.
And I think that is out of the
mainstream for the people in this
state.
You can respond, but first, would
you have voted with the courts,
liberal or conservative?
I would have voted to not implement
the 1849 criminal abortion
ban.
It was superseded
by a whole suite of
laws that directly conflicted
with it.
So I think it was the right
decision. My opponent in the past
has said on television that she
would have likely voted with
the minority in that
case to implement that
1849 abortion
ban I have worked...
So much of my life as
the policy and
legal director for Planned
Parenthood and in the legislature
to protect
a woman's ability to access
reproductive health care and to
make her own personal private
health care decisions.
I supported Roe vs.
Wade.
The legislation that I worked on
in the legislature codified
Roe v.
Wade, which my opponent does not
understand.
Uh... And that's what it did that's
all it did nobody supports
what my opponent is
saying nobody i want
to say this there is no one
more extreme ever
to have been a to be a candidate on
issues of reproductive health care
then my opponent she called the
overturning of roe versus wade
very wise and you can look it
up on television she said it right
on television She said she was
likely to vote to support.
I'm going to respond, I did not say
I was likely to vote, I didn't
respond ever in that regard.
And what I said about Dobbs, which
is the decision that overturned Roe
vs. Wade, is I said it was good
that it brought that national
ban and put it back into each
individual state.
So if California, where my opponent
is from, or Ohio, or
Texas, or Wisconsin,
and their citizens want to
enact a law that they
believe reflects their values,
they do so through their
legislators.
It's not a national ban or
national law or national line.
So in Wisconsin it is now 20
weeks and I am not the
extreme candidate in this race.
My opponent does have that law on
the books of hers that did not pass
saying at any time during
the pregnancy.
It is there it's black and
white.
Okay, so,
it is tragic that
we have someone running for
the state Supreme Court that is
celebrating that there are women all
over this country who are victims of
rape and incest to no longer.
Able to get
access.
Let me finish.
That is what the reality
of overturning
Roe vs.
Wade that you have called very wise.
It's not been very wise for
victims of rape and incest who now
live in states where abortion has
been outlawed.
It is not very wise to women who
have lost their lives in states
because they couldn't get help when
a pregnancy You went wrong.
I am a mother of two,
beloved. Children and
I and my husband went through
a lot of heartache to have
our children.
There were a lot a tears shed but
I got access to good medical
care.
I am so grateful for that but
pregnancies go wrong all over
this state and I do not want
women to suffer.
I want them to get good
medical care.
My opponent is gonna take us
backwards.
I will take us forward.
That's absolutely ridiculous.
This is exactly what we've been
doing in this campaign.
It's the same old political
playbook. If you don't have anything
truthful to say about your opponent,
then just lie and mislead.
I have never wanted women injured,
ever, ever.
I have always said that
the health and life of the mother is
the most important thing.
I have said that after
that 20-week compromise, there are
restrictions or limitations that
talk about with your doctor,
not your legislator, with your
doctor. And to say that I'm extreme,
that I want women to die or suffer,
my opponent has been saying that
from the beginning and that is
Absurd.
That's the reality of
the reversal of Roe vs.
Wade, which my opponent called very
wise, and it is tragic.
I do want to ask you about what you
said. You said on the issue, I
commit to upholding Wisconsin's
current 20-week consensus, not
because of personal politics, but
because it is the settled law of our
state. So if a challenge to this law
is brought before the court,
have you essentially prejudged the
case?
Not at all, not at
all. What I've said there is,
if the people of my state of
Wisconsin go through their
legislators and decide that they
want to change it, if not 20 weeks,
make it 18, 22, whatever they
want to do, and then the
legislature passes a law that
the governor signs, and
it comes to the court, and I'm on
the state Supreme Court, that's a
law that, one, would have a
presumption of constitutionality,
and that's what I would start with.
And then I would do, you know, I
find it really interesting in these
elections that everyone talks about
these hot button issues, and
no one talks about the fact that I
decide every case exactly
the same way.
I don't care if it's abortion,
redistricting, election related,
or if it is about termination of
parental rights or burdens of proof.
I decide them the same.
I look at the law, I look
the facts, and I make a reasoned,
determined determination
that is based upon those
two things.
So if there's a law that's passed
and it's changed and it comes to the
court and it is constitutional, I
will uphold it.
Judge Taylor, you previously served
as Public Policy Director for
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and
have long advocated for abortion
rights as a Democratic state
lawmaker.
How could an anti-abortion group
expect to receive a fair hearing
from you?
Because I have a six-year
history of being a fair
and impartial judge,
I am scrupulous in applying
the law.
I have issued hundreds
of decisions.
I've heard thousands of cases on
the circuit court.
I have never, not one
time, been reversed,
unlike my opponent, who refuses
to apply the law.
And pursues an agenda
that benefits corporations and
right wing special interests.
So I have a really strong
judicial record and
if I thought that I
couldn't be fair and impartial
on a case, whatever that case
may be, I would recuse myself.
Would you recuse yourself from any
case involving Planned Parenthood?
I have not worked for Planned
Parenthood in 15 years.
I have worked for various law
firms longer than that.
No, I'm sure my opponent
would not recuse herself from
the corporate law firm that she
worked for because it's been so
long. So I'm not going
to automatically recuse myself
on any area of law that I
practiced in. I will follow the
statutes and the judicial code of
ethics, which I always do.
And if I feel I cannot
be fair and impartial that
is the basis for recusal and I will
continue to do that on the state
Supreme Court.
And I'd like to respond to two
things. One, I do recuse when
my partners in my law firm that
I haven't been at for I
would say maybe 25 plus years
would come in front of me, I do
recue. And second,
I guess my opponent, when she gets a
few more years of judicial
experience under her belt, will
understand that reversals, as I've
said, are an integral and
part of the court system and they
show that you are an independent
justice or judge.
Now, you had another question.
I apologize.
Not when you got caught.
Question. I apologize. Not when you are called
out by five members of
the state Supreme Court for
deliberately and patently
disregarding precedent.
And everyone can read the decision.
And I wish they do, and I hope they
will.
Yes, thank you.
As assistant attorney general, you
represented the case and the
state, excuse me, in a case filed by
Planned Parenthood.
Would you then recuse yourself from
any case involving the current law
or Planned ParenthOOD?
So the case that I
was involved with had to do with
admitting privileges for doctors
where the legislature
wasn't concerned that doctors
performing abortions did not have
admitting privileges at hospitals so
that women, if they had
complications or were injured or
hurt, would not have anyone to go
with them to that hospital.
If that case about admitting
privileges came up, of course.
That's exactly what you do as
an independent justice.
You recuse on cases you are
involved in or companies that
you work for.
Quickly to both of you and and we'll
move on if the legislature passed
a stricter abortion ban say six
weeks known as a fetal Heartbeat law
judge Taylor is there a scenario you
would uphold that?
It's so hard to
say based on a
hypothetical.
You have to see the case.
You've got to apply the law.
We have never had a decision
in the state of Wisconsin looking at
the Constitution.
So I can't say
yes or no.
I mean, we're not supposed to
prejudge cases like that.
But what I can say is
I value every
woman's ability to
access reproductive healthcare and
make her own personal private health
care decisions.
When my opponent was representing
Scott Walker and defending that
admitting privilege as law,
thankfully it was struck down by the
Seventh Circuit. If it hadn't been,
it would have eliminated abortion
access for Wisconsin women.
A response in it if the legislature
passed a stricter.
And I would say, one,
again, it's a hypothetical, but two,
I don't believe that the people in
the state would accept that limit.
That's a little too close.
What I...
It's a little too early
in the pregnancy.
But I think the important thing here
to remember is, when I worked
for the Department of Justice, I was
an attorney. I was a advocate.
I never worked for Scott Walker.
I guess you've got to get that
straight, too.
I worked with the Department Of
Justice.
I represented Scott Walker, I
represented Tony Evers, I represent
Doug the Follett, I represented
the legislature, I represented
anyone who was...
Had to be represented by the
Department of Justice, including the
Department of Children and Families.
So I don't understand this
issue raised about what I've done
there. I was an advocate and you
know what? I wanted to win all of
my cases because that's what a good
attorney does.
As a judge, you step back.
As a legislator, you should never be
on the back.
One more quick hypothetical, which I
know judges love and you both love.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, bring it on.
Reversed to what we just did if the
legislature removed any and all
restrictions to abortion in
Wisconsin Judge Lazar is there
a scenario you would uphold that?
I would again, one, you're talking
about a hypothetical, but I would
look to the law, look to
see if it was constitutional,
and if that's what the people voted
for, and it was Constitutional,
but, I can't really say exactly
where I would go, again, I'm
thinking you're throwing these
hypotheticals that just really will
never happen, it's never going to be
that extreme or this extreme, it is
going to where we are, The 20 we
compromise, not at any time.
And Judge Taylor, quick.
I would say the same thing.
I do want to say that my
opponent seems to have forgotten
that she, there was
a recording of her talking to
some of her supporters
where she did say that
perhaps a fatal heart.
And this is, you can go look this up
and read the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, there was
a big article about it where she
contemplated that perhaps
a heartbeat bill was
a good compromise.
That's exactly what she said, it's
on a recording. What I said on the
recording was...
What I said on the recording was, I didn't
know where people in Wisconsin
stood.
Some people wanted it from the
beginning, some people wanted at all
at the end, some people may have
wanted the heartbeat.
I said that's for them to decide.
Let's move on.
Another challenge to Act 10 is
making its way through the courts,
the 2011 law signed by then-Governor
Scott Walker, eliminating collective
bargaining for most public
employees.
A Dane County judge has ruled key
provisions of the law
unconstitutional.
The High Court has denied a request
to bypass the Court of Appeals,
where it remains.
It will, though, still likely end up
before the High Court.
Judge Lazar, you defended Act 10 as
an assistant attorney general.
Actually, I'll correct that, but go
ahead. Go ahead.
I didn't defend Act 10 as an
assistant attorney general.
All I did was defend the case
where the question was, was the law
properly enacted?
When it got to the merits, I had
nothing to do with any of those
cases. It was just, did
Doug LaFollette enact the law,
properly? And the State Supreme
Court said he did.
That's all I did.
As a justice, would you recuse
yourself from this current case?
If the case has to do with whether
it was properly enacted, yes,
if it has to do with the merits,
there's no basis for me to do so
whatsoever.
Judge Taylor, you've been outspoken
in your opposition to Act 10 as a
Democratic state lawmaker.
Do you believe that Act 10 is
unconstitutional, and would you
recuse yourself?
Well, I did not come into
the legislature until after Act
10 was passed.
I was actually elected after it.
And it is a pending case that
could appear, it could come before
us. I think it's in, I don't know if
it's your district, it's
not in the Court of Appeals in
front of me, but it certainly
could come to the State Supreme
Court.
Would you recuse yourself from the
case?
I mean, I've never said
anything about the
legal merits of
it, nothing about the
constitutionality of it.
I will say that
I very
much value the rights
of working people to
be fairly compensated.
My grandmother was
a single mom to my mother and
struggled to make ends meet until
she got a union job and she
was able to earn.
A decent wage and she was able
to support 3 kids on her own and
help my mom go to college and that
inspired me to go to law school.
So I value very much
working people being able
to get a slice of the pie they
help make and not just the crumbs,
it seems the only people doing well
these days are millionaires and
billionaires. And that's a
legislative answer, not a judicial
one. But yes, it's not a judge's
answer.
And values do not belong
with a judge on the court.
Values are not what's supposed to be
there.
A good judge respects
the law.
An activist judge respects her
causes.
Yes, go ahead.
Before the second District Court of
Appeals. I'm assuming you can't tell
us if you've been assigned to that
case.
I can't tell you if I have or have
not.
I do want to
move on.
Judge Lazar, you've said that you
tell new judges you are in charge of
your courtroom when talking with
them about taking the bench.
In December, a federal jury found
former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah
Dugan guilty of a felony for
obstructing federal immigration
officials attempting to make an
immigration arrest inside the
courthouse.
Duggan is currently appealing.
The arrest and prosecution, though,
sparked nationwide debate and
controversy surrounding the power of
judges.
Judge Taylor, did the jury make the
right decision in that case.
You know, I do have great faith
in the jury system.
I was not in the courtroom, though.
I was the judge who presided over
that case.
But as a former circuit court
judge who presiding over dozens
and dozens of complicated
criminal cases, I do
have the faith in juries,
typically, in my own experience.
Now,
that the judge in that
case got a fair process,
which is what we wanted.
She got due process, which
everybody's entitled to.
That case is now on appeal.
I'm not sure how it's going to come
out.
But I do have great confidence
in our judicial system.
Judge Lizard, did the jury make the
right decision?
And I'll say I'm not going to
comment on whether they did or
didn't and I will also say that I
also have presided over
a lot of jury trials and
I would say as opposed to my
opponent who was in the criminal
rotation, I was in civil,
criminal, juvenile, mental
commitments and I presided on trials
in all of them in my seven years
as opposed my opponent's two years.
And I will tell you that in
almost every case that I had,
when you gave that case to the jury.
They did their job.
They tried hard.
They did a good job.
And I respect juries.
100%
And a quick follow-up, do you think
the FBI should have arrested Judge
Dugan in the first place?
I have no comment on that whatsoever
that case is still pending
Thank you. Bye.
I have been concerned about
how the federal government
has gone after judges.
We just heard it recently.
Judges have been threatened with
impeachment when the
executive doesn't like the
decisions that they make.
I think there's been a real attack
on the independence of judges.
I am fiercely independent, I
will resist any overreach
the federal government that
tries to interfere in the
independence of our state.
So that is a real issue.
There have been threats to judges,
there's been rhetoric that
I don't like.
Judges are just trying to do their
job. So I think the manner in which
Judge Dugan was arrested created
a spectacle and it didn't need to
happen that way.
And that was concerning.
Thank you.
Do you have any concerns about
federal overreach?
And I do have concerns, I
would say, with respect to the
safety and security of judges.
I also do not like when
we have politicians on any
side making insulting
comments to the independence or
decisions made by judges.
We all try so
hard to get everything right.
A judge's life is difficult and
it does not help when you have
politicians or anyone else
insulting judges.
Judges are under significant threats
and I've actually spoken
on that behalf in front of
our state legislator later to
try to get the judicial security
package done.
And I think it's so key and
important to the independence of
that third branch of our government.
Let's move on to Marcy's law.
It will continue to impact our
courts. Wisconsin voters approved
the constitutional amendment with
about 75 percent of the vote.
The goal was to expand and
strengthen the rights of crime
victims.
Judge Taylor, you voted against
Marcy' law twice in the legislature.
Why?
I have worked my entire
life for victims of
domestic violence and sexual
assault. Starting when I was in
college, I worked for a domestic
violence advocacy group.
In law school, I facilitated
a support group for survivors
of sexual assault at
Planned Parenthood.
I worked to make sure sexual assault
victims got access to emergency
contraception in the hospital
emergency rooms to prevent
pregnancy.
And in the legislature I worked
on several really important
pieces of legislation to
protect victims of domestic
violence. Now in this particular
case
many of the advocacy,
the domestic violence advocacy
groups that I had worked with had
real concerns with the bill.
It was not funded.
And they were concerned
that it would slow down justice for
individuals who opted
to participate in the judicial
system. Now, as it did pass,
I respect that.
I respect the will of the voters.
I implemented it as a
circuit court judge.
I treated every person who
came into the courtroom with dignity
and respect.
In fact, I still get
letters from victims who
are very grateful for
how they were treated and considered
in the courtroom, so I treat
everybody.
Given that, do you regret your
votes?
No, I don't regret, I think
at the time it
was the right vote.
I was a legislator who did
a lot of research and
everyone who I worked with in the
legislature will probably tell you
that. I didn't just vote because
everybody was voting.
I really wanted to do the right
thing and when I heard concerns
from the very people,
the domestic violence advocates I
had worked with, in so many
different capacities, that caused
me to hesitate.
Judge was our critics have
challenged the wording on the ballot
is unclear and insufficient the
court though in a 6 to 1 really
disagreed with that it has
led to some questions including new
debates about what information
should be made public and when
are there any negative unintended
consequences to Marcy's law.
Well I think first of all my
opponent didn't really explain that
she did vote against it and it was
something that should not have been
done. It is a very good strong
law. There are some issues that
still, when a law is
passed there are a lot of things
that work their way through the
courts and there are lot of issues
that don't sometimes have
the proper perspective
when they're drafted.
It's not like we have lawyers in our
legislature drafting most of
these bills. There are some issues
that have come up in my practice
with Marcy's Law.
I was on committees for victims'
rights before it was passed, during
that time, and then I implemented it
as presiding judge and criminal.
So I think there are some points
that will have to be addressed,
but overall it has been
astonishingly effective and
important and a necessary thing
that we give to our victims who
are suffering through
the crime itself and then a judicial
system that respect them and
give them the dignity that they're
entitled to.
We are coming up close to the top of
the hour, so we're going to wrap
things up here shortly.
I do want to ask about fundraising
though.
WISPolitics has tallied the latest
spending in the race, nearly $8
million in support of Judge Taylor
and nearly $1 million in the
support of Judge Lazar, a far cry
from the $115 million
in last year's Supreme Court race.
Judge Lazar conservative groups
spent tens of millions last year to
help Brad Schimel but haven't done
the same with you.
Is it because they don't think you
can win or because you've said
you're not Republican.
Well, one, I can win,
I will win, and two,
the reason why is I'm running not
as a conservative, I've never been a
member of a party, so I'm not a
Republican, and I'm a running as an
independent. I think that's the key
here. I'm getting support and
a big momentum and groundswell from
people in this state who are tired
of seeing the politicization
of our state Supreme Court, and
they actually want a candidate who
cares about the law and
not just causes or political
parties.
But Judge Taylor, millions,
including from liberal donors, have
still been spent to back your
campaign.
Is it because you still say that you
are a Democrat, or they've been
assured on how you will vote?
I'm not a member of the Democratic
Party.
I am really
proud of the incredible
grassroots support that I've
received throughout the state of
Wisconsin.
Tens of thousands of Wisconsinites
have become part of this campaign
in small contributions.
As I said, my average contribution
is less than $100.
So that's exciting.
That's democracy.
That what I love about
running.
That's what I've really enjoyed
about this election.
I'm certainly very glad to
see that we didn't have
Elon Musk come back to our state
and try to buy a seat on our
state Supreme Court.
I was very proud of the people of
the state when they stood up and
rejected that.
But I'm proud.
I'm running a really strong
grassroots campaign, and
there's nothing more important to
me.
And I do have to add one thing.
My opponent filled out the FCC
paperwork indicating that she still
is a Democrat to this day.
I filled it out saying that I am
independent.
We are nearing the end and you're
closing statements.
We're gonna try to get two quick
lightning round questions.
And first, what U.S.
Supreme Court justice, current or
former, would you have dinner with,
Judge Lizotte?
I would have dinner with Scalia and
Ginsburg because Ruth Bader Ginsburg
because I think they would be
fabulous together.
That's Taylor.
I would agree on Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and
I would love to
have dinner with
Alina Kagan.
I think she is really nice.
And if you started and hosted a
podcast, what would it be called,
Judge Saylor?
Uh... Rights for all
Judges are.
I think I would have to have it be
something more interesting, like the
best of Wisconsin.
It is now time for closing
statements.
We made it. We flipped a coin to
determine the order.
Each candidate will have one minute
for their final thoughts.
We'll begin with Judge Taylor.
Well, thank you so much to WISN.
It's been such a joy to be here, and
thank you, so much, to the viewers.
I hope that the viewers
saw a huge difference
between myself and my opponent.
I have worked my entire
30-year legal career to
protect the rights and freedoms of
Wisconsinites, and to make sure
that everybody...
Gets equal justice
under the law.
I have worked to move our state
forward.
My opponent has spent her
legal career taking away
our rights and prioritizing
corporate interests.
And right wing special
interests.
But this election is not about
me and it's not about her, it's
about you.
I've traveled around the state of
Wisconsin for the last 11 months.
You have told me that you want a
justice that's going to prioritize
you and stand up for your rights
rather than the most
powerful.
That is what I will do as
your Supreme Court Justice.
I will be a justice for the
people of Wisconsin.
Thank you so much.
And now, Judge Liz Hall.
Thank you. Thank you, Jaren and
Matt, for having me, and thank you
to everyone for watching this debate
tonight, even though it was a little
late. And I will tell you
that this debate has made it very
clear that the choice and
what happens in this election could
not be more important for our state
and the future of our courts.
In this race, you have on one
side, we cannot risk putting
10 years on allowing a
judicial activist to be on this
court who will not use and
follow the law, but will act
and follow her causes,
her agenda, and put those above
everything else.
That is what a legislator does.
I have spent my entire judicial
and legal career, 12 years
on the bench, protecting the rights
of people of this state.
When the powerless challenge
the powerful in my court,
I listen to them and I decide the
case solely based on the law
and the facts.
That is what a judge does.
I will be your independent justice.
I will, for the next 10 years,
stand up for the Constitution,
Wisconsin, and the rights.
So I'm asking you to vote for me,
Judge Maria Lazar, on April 7th.
Thank you so very much.
Well, after two delays, we are
five days from election day.
Our sincere thanks to both of you,
the candidates, for your time and
for being here tonight and shuffling
your schedules along with the
campaigns to make this rescheduled
debate work.
And thank you to everyone at home
for watching this evening.
If you missed any part of this
debate, it will be available on the
12 News app, YouTube, and streaming
on Very Local.
You can also look for post-debate
analysis Sunday on Upfront.
A reminder, Election Day is Tuesday.
Thank you so much for being with us.
Have a good night.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
I thought I would feel out of place.
Then I met some guys who were going
through the same thing I was.
I thought it was Justin Madison.
I joined from lacrosse.
I thought support was just for
someone with cancer and
then I realized it's
so much more.
From all across the globe.
To right here at home.
There's only one network.
And one news team you can trust.
27 News.
Asking the questions you're asking.
And telling the stories that matter
to you. Always digging deeper.
Covering the nation.
And covering your community each and
every day with more depth and
detail and more live and local
coverage.
World News Tonight with David Muir,
weeknights at 5.30.
And 27 News at 6 with
Amber Nagel and Brandon Taylor.
27 News, we've got you covered.
We've got you covered.
At 27 News, it's not just a
slogan.
It's who we are.
It means a commitment to finding the
stories that matter to you,
keeping you not just informed, but
prepared with the most accurate
information everywhere you go,
bringing you coverage from your
community, your state,
and from across the globe.
Good evening, I'm Brandon Taylor.
And I'm Amber Nagle, tonight we've
got you covered with a developing
story out of Madison.
27 news.
We've got you.
Creating the art of smart comedy,
starting now.
The Dick Van Dyke Show,
starring Dick Van Dike.
Rosemary, Maury,
Amsterdam, Larry Matthews,
and Mary Tyler Moore.
Thanks a lot, Mark. We'll just wait
in here.
Boy, I sure hate Alan's office.
Why?
Well, it's decorated so much better
than ours.
Well, even the men's room is
decorated better than our office.
Hey, how'd you know that?
Well, when the washer told me.
Do you have any idea what Owl wants
to see us about?
Mel didn't say.
Hey, why don't they call these meetings
sometime when I'm not having a
snack?
There is no such time.
What are they doing here?
We're at Brian Bridge.
We were just waiting for the dummy.
See us, but he doesn't want to see
you all you all
You
What does he want to see?
You, Rob. Me?
Only you.
Holy rock! You mean to say that I
had a rush up here and let my hot
chocolate get cold?
Sally, I'm sorry if I didn't make
myself clear.
The only thing that's clear is the
top of your head.
Eat your donut and I'll break it.
We'll see you later.
Oh, hiya!
Hey, it's nice to see you!
They're just leaving.
Good!
We just woke Rob up for a little
protection.
Yeah, a lot of muckin's been goin'
on around the water cooler.
Oh, yeah, very funny, very fun.
Thank you. Don't put that in the
show, though.
See you around. All right, bye.
Yeah.
Mel, do I speak a foreign language?
Uh, no, no. Shut up, Mel.
Yes, sir. Can't you understand me?
I said I wanted to see Rob.
That is Rob. I am Alan.
You are Mel. This is a door.
Use it. Oh, but I thought you
said... Shut up.
Come here.
Get out of here!
I can't hear you.
What do you want to see me about?
Just a minute, Rob.
You're the only one I can turn to.
You've got to help me.
What is it, Alan?
I want you to save my life.
It takes brains, good
taste,
and laughter to make it here.
Laverne and Shirley, weekdays at
2.30 p.m.
Eastern.
Javi finally turned my bad coffee
habit healthy.
This is my secret weapon.
Most protein drinks are super
chalky, but this one is so smooth,
creamy, and delicious.
I love it. Most iced coffees
have more sugar than a slice of cake
and zero benefit.
Swap it and fuel your health
instead. 20 grams of protein in
two scoops, done.
Zero grams of sugar, nada.
Inspired flavors.
Just a few simple ingredients with
powerful benefits.
And yes, you can pronounce all.
Try Javi today.
Text FANCY to 71319
to order now.
This tastes like your favorite iced
coffee, but feels your day like a
protein shake. And the flavor is
amazing. Without any sugar or...
To be a nurse.
Protein is so easy when it's coffee.
I don't like protein drinks, but
this one got me.
With this TV exclusive offer,
you can save up to 58%
plus three free gifts and free
shipping with your first order.
Don't miss this exclusive TV offer.
Text FANCY to 71319
to order now.
Do not miss this limited time offer.
Try Joby now.
Save your life, Al.
What are you talking about?
Rob, there's a bomb in this
office.
Right here.
It's a play.
No, it's a bom.
Baby fat by Harper and Worthington
Yates' new play.
Yeah, I'm supposed to do it on
Broadway. Yeah, well I read that.
Congratulations. For what?
Well, Yates is a Pulitzer Prize
winning playwright. Well, he wrote a
Pulitzer Prize winning bomb there.
Do it, do it, Rob.
You know how I feel about Broadway.
I've always wanted to make it big on
Broadway.
And when Harper, Worthy, and Yates
ask you to do a play, you just do
it. You know, I'm thinking of maybe
not even wearing my hair in this
part.
Yeah, they convinced me that great
art doesn't need hair.
Well, I guess so. It Picasso's
fault. Yeah.
Guy Kimmy was bald, too.
You see, that's what I mean, Rob.
You've got a sense of humor.
Come on, you've got to fix this,
Rob! Me?
Fix Harper, Worthington, Yates?
Well, I may have exaggerated a
little when I said it wasn't, you
know, all funny. He's given me some
laughs. There are a couple of
hee-hees, a couple ha-ha's, some
ho-ho's. But there are no big...
You want me to put in the you-ha?
Yeah, well, there are places that
are supposed to have this, but
listen to this dialog.
I say to my brother here,
you're ruthless, kid.
You may get to the top and be rich,
but you'll be a Machiavellian-air.
Now, what's that supposed to mean?
Well, Machiavelli was an Italian
author and states when he was
supposed to be unscrupulous, so that
probably refers to...
Yeah, I know what it means, and you
know what that means, but who's
going to tell the audience? What, do
we give out pamphlets to explain the
jokes?
It is esoteric.
Oh, I don't care about that, it's
just too highbrow...
So you can fix it.
Now, look, I've marked some spots
here that need fixing.
Well, wait a minute. How does Mr.
Yates feel about my tampering with
his script? Now, it's already
Friday, and I've got to be at
Westport for the weekend for
rehearsals. Now, you can get started
on this and give me some pages
Monday. Alan, won't he mind if a
complete stranger? Now, see, right
here at the end, the first act
curtain needs a big laugh there.
Alan, wait just a second.
Yates doesn't know about...
Well, no.
Oh, Rob, it is hard to tell
a writer that his stuff isn't funny.
You tell me that every week.
Oh, well you're a television
writer.
Oh, no offense, you know what I
mean, we love each other.
You know how playwrights are, but
the thing is, he will know the lines
are changed. Sure, but I'll memorize
what you write, and I'll throw it in
during rehearsal to think I'm Ed
Libbon. Now you can't tell anybody,
Buddy, Sally, or anybody.
Look, Al, I'm very flattered that
you think I can improve Mr. Ye's
grip, but if he doesn't know that
I'm working on it... Wait, it's done
all the time. Rob, I am desperate.
You gotta do this, man.
Rob, if I want this so bad,
I can feel it inside.
You know, Rob, you've got my guts
in your hands.
My hands?