That's the way I feel standing in the middle of my own truth.
High own business here.
I've got all kinds of plan for this joint.
Plans for my own ideas waiting for you to meet him.
Maybe we can get matching table courts and napkins,
and we can redecorate the powder room.
You get plenty of powder in the atmosphere, Stinks.
Yeah, well, now take down them fighting pictures
and we'll put up George and Mars reports.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, don't put George and Mars up.
I mean, pictures of George and Mars,
they always look like they don't want nobody to drink.
No, no, no.
No, no, no, eat it.
Don't eat it. Don't eat it. Don't eat it.
Don't eat it. Don't eat it.
I'm right on the tour.
I know. No, no, no, no, no.
Come on, wait.
No, no, no, no.
Nice drink.
We'll get rid of the pinball machine because that's gambit.
Eat it, eat it. Get rid of the pinball machine
and the guy who smells like garlic will come around,
kiss me on bone shakes, and put a hold on my head.
That's all.
Oh, that's all.
I'm through nothing. I don't know.
Even though I hate the powder, I'm outside.
That's enough.
Now, when I want to hear no more, this is my boss.
I'm the boss of this bar, and I'm the boss,
and I'm the guy that says, what goes?
But you made me a partner.
When did I do that?
When did you forge my name?
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
Whoo!
All in the family was recorded on tape before a live audience.
Whoa!
you're not going to be able to
be able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able
to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be
able to be able to be able
able to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be a
able to be able to be able to
be able to be able to be able
County Circuit Court Judge and former Assistant Attorney General
Under Governor Scott Walker. If you're trying to legislate from the bunch that's
completely out of bounds. And a pellet 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 matcha. When
people describe you as the conservative candidate. What do you say? Well it's
somewhat amusing. When people describe you as the liberal candidate how do you
respond to that. But look I care about people's rights. And now live from the
WISN TV studios in downtown Milwaukee. Tonight's moderators WISN 12
political director Matt Smith. And up front co-host 12 News anchor Jared 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 studios. 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 to state appellate
court judges the honorable Maria Lazar and the honorable Chris Taylor. Thank you
both for being here. You're so very welcome. 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 we'll 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 and rescheduling this debate when I was
battling with the kidney stone last week. So thanks so much. Well people
should care and I 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 race? 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 you 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 10 years. You
both describe your judicial philosophies differently. Judge Taylor
you've set your philosophy centers around people and equal justice. Judge
Lazar you've 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 who loves their causes or their beliefs or their
agendas. I am going to be a justice on this court who's 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 going to actually look
what is there when people come in front of my court. They look 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-wing special interests. I don't know of one public
judicial endorsement that she has had. In contrast I have the support of over
hundred and sixty 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 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 recognized in the Constitution or if it was not recognized
in society, it does not exist. Don't you touch Lizzare you're shaking your head.
No and this is exactly what I've 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 do not cannot afford a legislator on the bench as to
my 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 speed of that. What my opponent just said is
she was reversed in a case called Wisconsin Voter Alliance for to see 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. 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.
And 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 secret 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 said 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 that I'm
set on the ballot. My point 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 and her decision not to seek reelection. 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 said, when unheated and Wisconsin has only seen the
beginning of what is an alarming shift from thoughtful principal judicial
service toward bitter partisanship, personal attacks and political games
manship. 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 for
Turnover the Police and many many judges as well. But with regard to what
Justice Bradley said I do 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 a court that decides things only
based on the law and the facts and that's what I have done my entire life and
that as a judge and that's what I 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 and Ed Ziegler and Rebecca
Bradley dissented arguing those same concerns. Justice Taylor given this
week's ruling should this second set, this second three-judge panel considering a
separate lawsuit to the congressional maps, 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
the 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 non-partisan 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 this 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 move
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 gerrymandered 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 it's 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 Liz are 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 map 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
unlikely that anything will happen before because before the mid-term
elections because 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 ten years but that because of the
changes in the maps that he had 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 ten 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 courts. 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 SAVE
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 the state. Judge Taylor you've previously called
Wisconsin's voter ID law one of the most extreme in the country saying it's
true intention is suppressing our ability to vote. Last April more than 60% of
Wisconsin voters approved in shining the state's voter ID 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 boxes
nobody's business but I can say that it is the law of the land and I will
implement the law of the land. I'm glad to hear my opponents 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 say 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? 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've 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 100% for that and I also believe that we have to uphold the
voter ID law that the citizens of the state passed overwhelmingly and I also
would note that when my 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. 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 vote. 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 that Joe Biden did win and that that's the state of the
law law in our country and I support that 100% I think we should be looking
forward. I don't think we should be looking back. I agree 100% of who won
that election and how it was won right now on election issues as the
appeals court judges and the Supreme Court is 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
safe act. I think that could cause a lot of chaos. I think there could be I'm
hoping that we will continue to allow mail-in voting that would cause
complete havoc but look this is why we need a strong state Supreme Court that's
going to hold the federal government accountable. My opponent is going to be
a rubber stamp for the federal government. Judge 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 not 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's 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 has also not said if she will recuse if the
organization where she was their policy advisor planned parenthood brings a case
up in front of the state 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 of the company
that's bringing the lawsuit. They're not on that jury. Why would we want them on
that? Why would we want them that case as a judge? It's recusal in them in any
direct response. Absolutely. Well I am so proud of the tens of thousands of
grassroots supporter I have supporting my campaign unlike my opponent. My average
contribution is less than a hundred dollars. My opponent is being supported
by right wing mega donors. That is who is 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
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 have 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 are donating to her campaign.
Let's talk about recusal, a broader conflicts of interest here. Chief Justice
Jill Kirovsky 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 space solely on
campaign contributions, endorsements or independent expenditures from a party.
Judge Lazard, 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 to recuse if 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 or 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 ruled 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 court. 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 I said I'm 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 the public. 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 like the US Supreme Court. So we do have a system
for complaints. It's you know it has been a system that I don't think is
perfect by any means. I think we need to re look at the system and try to make
it stronger so that people have more confidence in what we do.
Gentle as our quick response and to the point of why 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've been in and the fact
that I have lived my life as an open book you can go on my website judge
marielazar.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 cure
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 lawyers 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 10 years.
Abortion is again an issue with this race. You both have talked about it on the
campaign trail and in campaign ads in a four to three decision led by the courts
liberal majority last summer. The courts 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 courts 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% 100% 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
first. Would you have voted with the courts liberal or conservatives? 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 versus Wade. The legislation that I worked on
in the legislature codified Roe versus Wade, which my opponent does not
understand. And that's what it did. That's all it did. Nobody supports what my
opponent is saying. Nobody. But I want to say this. There is no one more extreme
ever to have been to be a candidate on issues of reproductive health care than
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 did not respond ever in that regard. And what I said about
Dobbs, which is the decision that overturned Roe versus 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's 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's
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 who no longer are in that
tragic. I never said that. Let me finish. That is what the reality of
overturning Roe versus 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's not very wise for women who've lost their lives in states because
they couldn't get help when a pregnancy 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 of tears shed, but I got access to good medical care. I am
so grateful for that, but pregnancies go wrong all over the 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, ever. I have
always said that the health and life of the mother is the most important thing. I
have always said that after that 20-week compromise, there are restrictions or
limitations that you talk about with your doctor, not your legislator, with
your doctor. And to say that I am 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. That's the reality of the reversal of Roe versus Wade, which my
opponent called very wise. Justice, 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, 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's about termination of parental rights,
or burdens of proof, I decide them the same way. I look at the law, I look at 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's 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 not 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 gonna 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 and 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
recuse. 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. Go ahead.
I 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. Go. Yes. Thank you. As assistant attorney
general, you represented the case in 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 involved, 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 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 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 health care and
make her own personal private health care decisions. When my opponent was
representing Scott Walker and defending that admitting privileges 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 and
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 too early
in the pregnancy. But but I think the important thing here to remember is when
I work for the Department of Justice, I was an attorney. I was an advocate. I
never worked for Scott Walker. I guess you got to get that straight to I work for
the Department of Justice. I represented Scott Walker. I represented
Tony Evers. I represented 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
backs. One more quick hypothetical, which I know judges love and you both love this.
Bring it on. To what we just did. If the legislature removed any and all
restrictions to abortion in Wisconsin, Judge LaZara, they're scenario, you
would uphold that. I would again, one, you're talking about a hypothetical, but I
would again look to the law, look to see if it was constitutional. And 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's going to be where we are, the 20-week compromise,
not at any time. Judge Taylor, it's 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 fetal heart,
and this is, you can go look this up and read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
There was a big and listen to it. 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 a recording was I didn't know where people
in Wisconsin stood. Some people wanted it from the beginning, some people wanted it
off 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 so 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 La Follette enact the law properly,
and the state's Supreme Court said he did. That's all I did.
As a justice, would you accuse 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 accuse 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 don't know if it's in your court in 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 accuse yourself from the case?
No. 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 three 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 the legislative answer, not a judicial one, but it's not an answer about
my values. And values do not belong with a judge on the court. Values are not what's supposed to be
there. You talk about the good judge. Does the respect the law? An activist judge respects her
causes. Yes, go ahead. I tell you 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. Dugan 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 not the judge who presided
over that case. But as a former circuit court judge who presided 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 Lazar, 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 will say as opposed to my opponent
who was in the criminal rotation, I was in civil criminal juvenile mental commitments.
And I presided over trials in all of them in my seven years as opposed to my opponents 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?
There's no comment on that whatsoever. That case is still pending.
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
has 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. 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 Marcia's law. It will continue to impact our courts. Wisconsin voters approved
the constitutional amendment with about 75% of the vote. The goal was to expand and strengthen
the rights of crime victims. Judge Taylor, you voted against Marcia's law twice in the
legislature. Why? I have worked my entire life for victims of domestic violence in 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 the vote. 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 Lazar, 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 a 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 that a judicial system that
doesn't respect them and give them the dignity that they're entitled to.
We are coming up close to the top of the hours. So we're going to wrap things up here shortly.
I do want to ask about fundraising though. WIS Politics is tally the latest spending in the race,
nearly $8 million in support of Judge Taylor and nearly $1 million in support of Judge Lazar. 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 Schimmel, 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 a 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 running as an independent.
And 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. 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 a hundred dollars. So that's exciting. That's democracy. That's 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 poet 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 going to try to get two quick lightning
round questions. First, what U.S. Supreme Court justice current or former would you have dinner
with? Judge Lewis? I would have dinner with Scalia and Ginsburg because Ruth Bader Ginsburg
because I think they would be fabulous together. Judge Taylor. I would agree on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and I would love to have dinner with Alina Kagan. I think she is really interesting. And if you
started and hosted a podcast, what would it be called? Judge Taylor.
Uh, rights for all. 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
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 Lizoff. Thank you. Thank you,
Jared 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 the 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
our 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 up front. 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
I was. I thought it was Justin Madison. Then 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. At 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
New York. 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 Braden Taylor and I'm Amber Nagle. Tonight we've got you covered with
the developing story out of Madison of 27 news. We've got you hitting the art of smart comedy, starting now.
Thanks a lot, Martin. We'll just wait here. Why? It's your hate. Allen's office. Why?
Well, it's decorated so much better than ours. Well, even the man's room was decorated better
than our office. Hey, how'd you know that? No wonder Washington told me.
Even the idea what Allen wants to see is about? Milton's sick. Hey, what are they going to eat
meetings sometime when I'm not having a snack? There is no such time.
Rock. What are they doing here? We're praying bridge. We were just waiting for the dummy.
I thought Allen was going to see us. But he doesn't want to see you all.
You all? Even when a southern dialect? Who does he want to see? You, Rob. Me? Only you.
Only, Rob. You mean to say that I had a rush up here and let my hot chocolate get cold?
No, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The only thing that's clear is the top of your head.
Each of Donut Downberg will see you later. Oh, hi. Oh, hi. Hey, it's nice to see you.
What are they doing here? They're just leaving. Good. We just walked Rob up for a little protection.
Oh, wonderful. Yeah, that bucket's been going on around the water cooler. Oh, yeah, very funny.
Thank you. Don't put that in the show, though. See you around. Bye. Bye.
Mel, do I speak a far line with you? Oh, 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 forgot your shirt, Mel. Yes, sir. Come here. Get out of here.
What do you want to see, Mel? Just a minute, Rob.
Rob, it's the only one I can turn to. You've got to help me. What is it, Alan? Rob.
I want you to save my life.
I'm laughter to make it here. Laverne and Shirley, weekdays at 2.30 p.m. Eastern.
Javi, finally, for 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 ice coffees have
more sugar than a slice of cake and zero benefit. Swap it and fuel your health instead. 20 grams
of protein and two scoops. Done. Zero grams of sugar, not a dessert-inspired flavors.
Just a few simple ingredients with powerful benefits. And yes, you can pronounce all of them.
Try Javi today. Text Fancy to 71319 to order now. This tastes like your favorite nice coffee,
but fuels your day like a protein shake. And the flavor is amazing without any sugar or
artificial sweeteners. 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 Javi now. Save your life out. What are you
talking about, Rob? There's a bomb in this office right here. It's a play. No, it's a bomb.
Maybe fed by Harper Worthington. You ate his new play. Yeah, I'm supposed to do it on Broadway.
Yeah, I read that. Congratulations. For what? Well, Yates is a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright.
Well, he wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning bomb there. You know how I feel about Broadway. I always wanted
to make it big on Broadway. And when Harper Worthington Yates asks 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 ball.
I kill you. He 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. Well, 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 he-he's, a couple of hah-hah's, some ho-hos, but there are no big...
You want me to put it in the hu-hah? Yeah, well, there are places that are supposed to have this
but listen to this dialogue here. Yeah, I say to my brother here, you're a ruthless kid. You may
get to the top and be rich, but you'll be a Machiavellian heir. Now, what's that supposed to mean?
Well, Machiavell, he was an Italian author and states when he was supposed to be a scrupy
of this, so they're probably refers to it. Yeah, well, I know what it means and you know what it means,
but who's going to tell the audience? What do we give out pamphlets to explain the jokes?
It is, that's a terror. Oh, I don't care about that. It's just too highbrow.
You know what I like. 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 mind tampering with his script?
Now, look, it's already Friday and I've got to be a Westport for the weekend for rehearsals.
Now, you can get started on us and give me some patience Monday.
How would he mind if a complete stranger?
Now, you see, right here at the end, the first act curtain needs a big laugh there.
Alan, wait just a second. Yates doesn't know. Well, no.
Oh, Rob, it's hard to tell a writer that a stuff isn't funny.
You tell me that would be weak. Oh, you're a...
You're a television writer. Oh, no, fancy. 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 into a rehearsal to think I'm Ed Liben.
Now, you can't tell anybody, buddy, Sally or anybody.
Look, I'm very flattered that you think I can approve, Mr. Yates' script,
but he doesn't know that I'm working on it.
Hey, it's done all the time, Rob. I'm desperate. You've got to do this, mate.
Rob, I want this so bad I can feel it inside.
You know, Rob, you've got my guts and your hands.
My hands?
This...