Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protaseiwitz remains under the threat of impeachment by
legislative Republicans and Assembly Speaker Robin Voss, who has now created a secret panel
of former Supreme Court justices to study the legal issues surrounding the process of impeachment.
We are joined now by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janine Gaskey, and thanks for your time
today. We're happy to be here. Now we should start by acknowledging you are not one of the former
justices recruited by the Assembly Speaker, but would you have joined this panel if he had asked
for your input on this issue? No, I don't understand how Supreme Court justices ought to be given in
opinion as to whether one of their former colleagues should be impeached. It's a very bizarre process,
and I would not have consented to that. Now this has to do with comments that Janet Protaseiwitz
made when before she was elected, where she called the current electoral maps rigged.
And apparently the linkage that we're supposed to make is Republicans are saying if she agrees to
hear a redistricting case but does not recuse herself that that would constitute corrupt
conduct in office, is that what you're reading in terms of what they need to do to reach this
threshold for impeachment? I think that's their version of the argument, yes. So what do you make
of that? How do we how do we define corrupt conduct in office? Because obviously we're not talking
about a crime or misdemeanor, which is the other elements of impeachment. Right, right. Let me
peel this back just a moment if I can. You know, the first thing is whether or not it was
appropriate for her to make those statements during the campaign. And there is a United
States Supreme Court case that's not very old, that is absolutely on point, that says a judicial
candidate can offer his or her opinions on political and legal issues. That case, interestingly,
I'm up with brought by the Republican Party of Minnesota and the written by the conservatives
on the US Supreme Court. But anyway, so there's nothing inappropriate what she said.
So then the question is, can she recuse or should she recuse herself on the case? Well,
recusal in Wisconsin is different than a lot of other states because our court a couple years ago
enacted a statute or a rule that says campaign contribution, first of all, cannot
be reasoned to have to recuse herself. And secondly, a judge decides himself or herself
whether or not they ought to recuse themselves. So there's no way there's any corrupt conduct in
this, even if she decides to sit on the case. So former Justice David Prosser is the only
justice to publicly say that they are a part of this process. Do you trust that he'll be able to
deliver a report based on his reading of the law or what should we make of anything that comes out of
this? Well, I have respect for Justice Prosser. He and I served together. You know, but part of
it is the appearance, right? That's what's important at the Supreme Court and important in this process.
And you know, Justice Prosser clearly was aligned with the Republican Party. And you know, first of
all, I don't think the justices should be doing this necessarily. But you know, it would be nice
to have picked somebody like Louis Butler, who obviously is sort of on the other side of the
spectrum. I don't know who that I have got to guess as to the second person is and don't know
who the third person is. But I suspect they're going to be all aligned with sort of the same
philosophical view as the Republican Party. So with this vague concept of corrupt conduct and
office and this impeachment element has not been tested in the courts in Wisconsin, obviously,
for more than a century. So is it likely that any attempt by Republicans in the legislature
to bring the impeachment process forward would end up back before a court? We've already seen
one lawsuit regarding to that. Could this be a federal court issue about the First Amendment
rights or how does this get resolved? Well, this is what I fear. I fear that they will
vote on impeachment. And when you are impeached under our Constitution, the justice can no longer
sit on cases until there's a vote, whether to acquit or convict. And I fear that they may delay
that vote and thereby knocking her off the court and having only six members of the court.
That's where I think there, you know, there is an infringement on the judicial branch,
from the legislative branch. They're trying to impact a particular case and they're taking
these actions. If they would be successful at impeaching her, then the question is whether they
get a two thirds vote to be able to convict her. If they convicted her, then it would hit the courts,
but ultimately it could also go to the Supreme Court because it involves First Amendment rights.
So I don't think it's going to get that far. I think the Republican legislature wants to get
her off that case one way or another. And this is the means that you're using.
So we've got less than a minute here, but no matter what, the whole issue just ties the
reputation of the courts, even closer to the political parties. What is the outcome in terms
of voters viewing the Supreme Court as independent today?
Well, you know, first of all, Justice Portisay, which obviously won her election handily. You
know, I had 11% above her opponent. And I think, you know, now that people are saying, why can't
she sit on a case when we just elected her to the position? But the problem is we are missing
messing with political parties and partisan views on the court. And it is important that the court
continue to appear unbiased, impartial, and non-political when it makes its decisions.
All right. Justice Kasky, thanks for your time today.
You're welcome.
Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Happy to do it. Take care. Bye bye.