D
DENZINE.
>> Frederica: FINALLY WE HAVE A
FOURTH IN OUR SERIES OF
INTRODUCE WITH THE CANDIDATES
FOR A SEAT IN THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT.
THE PRIMARY IS FEBRUARY 21 WITH
THE TOP VOTE GETTERS ADVANCING
TO THE GENERAL ELECTION IN
APRIL.
EARLIER THIS WEEK ZAC SCHULTZ
SAT DOWN WITH JENNIFER DOROW A
WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGE.
>> CAN YOU BREAK DOWN YOUR
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY.
>> I'M A JUDICIAL CONSERVATIVE
AND UPHOLDING THE LAW GIVING
DEFERENCE TO OUR LEGISLATIVE
STATUTES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE
POLICY IS MADE AND NEVER OF
LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH.
>> HOW DO YOU DEFINE LEGISLATING
FROM THE BENCH BECAUSE THERE'S A
LOT OF DISAGREEMENT WHEN A COURT
MAKES A RULING WHETHER THEY'RE
REARRANGING A LAW TO FIT A NEED
OR OPINION VERSUS THIS IS ALL WE
HAVE TO GO ON?
>> WHEN A JUDGE OR JUSTICE
INSERTS THEIR OWN POLITICAL
AGENDA, POLICY, VIEWS OR
PERSONAL OPINIONS ON WHAT THE
LAW SHOULD BE, THAT'S MY
DEFINITION OF LEGISLATING FROM
THE BENCH.
AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE THE IT'S
THE ROLE OF A JUDGE TO APPLY THE
LAW AS WRITTEN TO THE FACTS OF
THE CASE COME BEFORE US TO NEVER
PREJUDGE THOSE CASES TO BE FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL AND IN OUR
GOVERNMENT WE HAVE A SYSTEM SET
UP, A CLEAR SEPARATION OF
POWERS, OUR LEGISLATIVE FIGURES,
OUR ASSEMBLY MEN AND SENATORS,
THEY MAKE THE LAW.
THAT'S WHERE THE POLICY OF THE
IS SET.
AND THEN JUDGE INTERPRET THAT
WHEN CALLED UPON TO DO THAT.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT JUDGES
ACT MORE LIKE UMPIRES.
WE DON'T MAKE THE LAW, WE JUST
DECIDE THE LAW AND IF YOU THINK
OF THE ANALOGY TO BASEBALL JUST
CALLING THE BALLS AND STRIKES,
NOT THE PITCHER, NOT THE
CATCHER, BUT JUST CALLING THE
BALLS AND STRIKES AND THAT'S
WHAT A JUDGE DOES AND A JUSTICE
SHOULD DO IS CALL THE LEGAL
BALLS AND STRIKES THAT COME
BEFORE HIM OR HER.
>> SO YOU SAID THE POLITICS
SHOULD ENTER INTO THE DECISION
BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A
POLITICAL RACE AND THERE ARE A
LOT OF POLITICAL FACTORS
WEIGHING IN TO ALL THE
CANDIDATES AND CONSTITUENTS ARE
THINKING WHO THEY WANT TO VOTE
FOR, SOME ARE THINKING THROUGH A
POLITICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE.
HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT WHEN YOU
WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT YOU
WILL BE IMPARTIAL ON THE BENCH
AND PEOPLE ALSO WANT A SENSE OF
YOUR POLITICS?
>> IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HONOR
THAT THIS IS A NON-PARTISAN RACE
AND THAT MY POLITICAL VIEWS OR
MY POLICY PREFERENCES ARE NOT
GOING TO IMPACT WHAT I DO ON THE
BENCH.
IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE
LIBERAL CANDIDATES AND I KNOW WE
GIVE THEM LABELS, LIBERAL AND
CONSERVATIVE BUT IT'S A SIMPLE
WAY FOR THE PUBLIC TO IDENTIFY
OUR APPROACH AND WHAT THE LAW IS
AND HAVE YOU TWO CANDIDATES
OPENLY GIVING US THEIR POLITICAL
AGENDA, CAMPAIGNING ON A
POLITICAL AGENDA AND FORECASTING
HOW THEY WOULD VOTE ON MANY
IMPORTANT ISSUES.
THEY'RE TELLING THE FUTURE
LITIGANTS, THEIR MIND IS MADE
UP.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS
OR THE LAW.
VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I'LL DO X, Y
OR Z.
THAT IS NOT THE METHODOLOGY I
WILL FOLLOW AND THAT I HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWING FOR 11 YEARS ON THE
BENCH.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT EVERY
JUDGE AND JUSTICE STAY IN THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL LANE AND THAT'S
WHAT I'LL DO.
>> WHAT SHOULD VOTERS THEN THINK
OF YOUR BACKGROUND, WHO WITH YOU
WERE APPOINTED BY AND WHO IS
ENDORSING YOU AND WHERE THE
OUTSIDE MONEY THAT SUPPORTS YOU
COMES FROM AND FAMILY MEMBERS
AND THEIR CONNECTIONS TO
POLITICAL PEOPLE AND THE
LIBERALS ARE SAYING WE'RE BEING
UP FRONT AND HONEST AND IT'S THE
CONSERVATIVES TRYING TO HIDE
WHERE THE REAL INFLUENCE MAY BE.
>> THE CANDIDATES ON THE LEFT
ARE TELLING YOU ABOUT A
POLITICAL AGENDA WHEN THIS IS
NOT A RACE FOR A LEGISLATIVE OR
GUBERNATORIAL POSITION.
THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME
AS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN
UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW AND
BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO NOT
TALK ABOUT MY PERSONAL
PREFERENCES.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS IS
TO SHOW THE PUBLIC, SHOW THE
LITIGANTS AND REMIND ME THAT I
NEED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.
I COVER UP THOSE PERSONAL
PREFERENCES SO THAT I MAKE A
DECISION BASED ON THE LAW.
WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION BASED
ON THE LAW, YOU HAVE
PREDICTABILITY, NO LIABILITY AND
STABILITY.
>> I WANT TO LOOK BACK AT A FEW
CASES THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED
THAT ARE STILL PRETTY IMPORTANT.
LEGISLATURE VERSUS PAUL WAS
ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S ABILITY TO
PUT RESTRICTIONS DURING COVID.
HOW DO YOU THINK THAT CASE WAS
HANDLED?
HOW WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED IF YOU
WERE ON THE BENCH AT THE TIME?
>> THE MAJORITY OPINION IN THAT
CASE WAS WRITTEN BY JUSTICE
ROGUAAAN AND THAT PROCEDURE WAS
NOT FOLLOWED AND I FOUND MYSELF
LOOKING AT THEIR ANALYSIS AND
SAYING THEY GOT IT RIGHT.
OF COURSE, EVERY CASE IS
DIFFERENT AND I DON'T WANT TO
PRE JUDGE CASES THAT MAY COME
BEFORE THE COURT AGAIN OR IN THE
FUTURE THAT LOOK AT ISSUES OF
AUTHORITY FOR A BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT WHETHER DIRECTLY OR
DELEGATION.
>> AND ABORTION'S ANOTHER ISSUE
THAT IS LIKELY TO COME BACK IN
THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
I WANT TO ASK HOW YOU MIGHT RULE
ON THAT AND ON THE DOBBS
DECISION DO YOU THINK THAT WAS
DECIDED FAIRLY AND THE
APPROPRIATE METHOD TO REVIEW OR
NOW WISCONSIN LAW THAT NEEDS TO
BE LOOKED AT ON ITS OWN OUTSIDE
OF DOBBS?
>> AS THE SUPREME COURT CASE
FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IT
OBVIOUSLY IS THE LAW OF THE LAND
AND I'M DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW
THAT.
WHAT THAT CASE DID WAS PUT THE
DECISION OF REGULATING ABORTION
IN THE HAND OF THE STATE
LEGISLATURE.
THAT'S WHERE THAT DECISION
SHOULD BE MADE AND OF COURSE
THERE IS A CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW,
IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGE, THAT'S THE QUESTION
BEFORE THE COURT WILL BE WHAT IS
THE STATUS OF THE LAW IN
WISCONSIN.
I WON'T COMMENT ANY FURTHER
BECAUSE IT'S LIKELY TO MAKE ITS
WAY UP TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT.
BUT AGAIN, AS A SITTING JUDGE
AND AS A HOPEFUL TO BE ON THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT I HAVE
TO GIVE HONOR TO THE DECISIONS
OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
>> IS THERE A DANGER IN VOTERS
APPROACHING THIS ELECTION
LOOKING THROUGH ONLY THE PRISM
OF ONE OR TWO HOT-BUTTON
POLITICAL ISSUES AND SAYING I'M
GOING TO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE
THAT MOST CLOSELY FOLLOWS MY
VIEWS THERE OPPOSED TO BROADLY
LOOKING AT WHAT I WANT IN A
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?
>> I THINK THE DANGER IS THERE'S
CANDIDATES OPENLY CAMPAIGNING ON
POLITICAL AND CONTROVERSIAL
TOPICS AND VOTERS SHOULD LOOK AT
HOW ARE THE JUSTICES GOING TO
DECIDE THE CASES THAT COME
BEFORE THE COURT?
NOT JUST ON A COUPLE OF TOPICS
BUT ON ALL TOPICS.
THAT'S NOT BEING FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL.
WE TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WISCONSIN AND FAITHLY
DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF OUR
OFFICE TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.
THAT'S WHAT JUSTICES AND JUDGES
SHOULD DO THAT HONORS THE ROLE
OF THE COURTS.
IT HONORS THE ROLE OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
AND HONORS THE VOICE OF THE
PEOPLE AS WELL BECAUSE THE
PEOPLE SPEAK THROUGH OUR
LEGISLATORS AND THAT'S WHERE
POLICY IS MADE.
I WILL NEVER INSERT MY POLICY
PREFERENCES INTO THE DECISIONS
THAT I MAKE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT VOTERS WILL
BE LOOKING AT SO THAT THEY KNOW
WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS THAT COMES
BEFORE THE COURT THEY CAN TRUST
THE DECISIONS MADE.
>> FINALLY, THIS IS GETTING A
LOT OF ATTENTION BOTH WISCONSIN
AND NATIONALLY, HOW MUCH WILL
THAT AFFECT THE RACE PEOPLE ARE
STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR
RACE TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT?
>> IT'S A POSITION ON THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN.
I CAN SEE THAT AS I GO AROUND
THE STATE CAMPAIGNING AND THERE
ARE A LOT OF EYES LOOKING AT
THIS RACE AS WELL, I THINK FOR
THE WRONG REASONS.
I THINK THERE'S A PUSH FROM THE
LEFT TO PUSH THIS POLITICAL
AGENDA SO THAT NOT ONLY
WISCONSIN CAN BE TRANSFORMED AND
NOT IN A GOOD WAY, NOT THROUGH
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BUT A
VOTER 4-3 ON THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT SO THAT OTHER
POLITICAL AGENDAS CAN BE MET AS
WELL.
THAT'S WRONG.
IT HAS NO PLACE IN THE COURTS
AND I DO BELIEVE THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN SEE THAT
AND WANT A COURT THAT'S FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL INSTEAD OF ONE DRIVEN
BY A POLITICAL AGENDA.
>> Frederica: YOU CAN SEE ALL
THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE
CANDIDATES ON OUR NEWS PAGE.
FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT