AND TAKE AND MAYBE AN ALTERNATE
COMPROMISE PROPOSAL.
>> IN ELECTION NEWS, FOR THE
PAST TWO YEARS, EVERY MAJOR
DECISION BY THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN MADE BY
ONE MAN, JUSTICE BRAN HAGEDORN
HE OFTEN GIVES A 4-3 ADVANTAGE
BUT HE SIDES WITH THE THREE
LIBERALS INFURIATING HIS
CONSERVATIVE COLLEAGUES.
"HERE & NOW" REPORTER ZAC
SCHULTZ REPORTS HOW HAGEDORN'S
STREAK ON THE COURT HAS BECOME A
FACTOR IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION
COMING UP NEXT TUESDAY, FEBRUARY
21.
>> I THINK IT'S NO SECRET HE AND
I DISAGREED ON SIGNIFICANT
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.
>> OF THE FOUR CANDIDATES
RUNNING FOR THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT, DANIEL KELLY IS
THE MOST OUTSPOKEN ABOUT JUSTICE
BRIAN HAGEDORN.
>> IT'S NOT PERSONAL OPINION,
IT'S NOT PREFERENCES.
THIS IS WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.
SO WE DISAGREE ON A PROFOUND
LEVEL ON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.
>> KELLY AND HAGEDORN WERE ON
THE COURT TOGETHER ONE YEAR
BEFORE KELLY LOST HIS
RE-ELECTION BID IN 2020.
THEY WERE ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF
THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE VERSUS
POLE IN BATTLING THE PANDEMIC.
AFTER KELLY LOST HAGEDORN'S
PROMINENCE INCREASED AND HE
SIDED WITH LIBERALS TO KEEP THE
GREEN PARTY CANDIDATES OFF THE
BALLOT AND IN THE GO FORWARD
WHERE DONALD TRUMP TRIED TO
THROW OUT SOME ELECTIONS.
>> HE WAS ELECTED AND WHEN HIS
TERM WAS UP IF HE CHOOSES TO RUN
AGAIN HE WILL NEED TO MAKE A
REPORT OF HIS WORK TO THE PEOPLE
OF WISCONSIN.
>> BRIAN HAGEDORN DECLINED TO
COMMENT FOR THE STORY.
HIS TERM IS NOT OVER UNTIL 2029
BUT IT HASN'T STOPPED KELLY FROM
USING HAGEDORN AS A FOIL TELLING
VOTERS THEY SHOULDN'T SERVE FOR
CANDIDATE DOROW BECAUSE SHE
COULD BE ANOTHER HAGEDORN.
>> YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ELECT
A CANDIDATE TO FIND OUT IF THEY
ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSERVATIVE.
THAT WAS THE POSITION WE WERE IN
WITH BRIAN HAGEDORN.
IT DOESN'T WORK OUT SO WELL.
>> JENNIFER DOROW HAD LITTLE TO
SAY ABOUT JUSTICE HAGEDORN
EXCEPT TO NOTE WHOEVER WINS THE
ELECTION WILL BE SERVING WITH
HIM ON THE COURT.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM OR HIS
METHODOLOGY.
WHAT I CAN DO IS FOCUS ON WHAT I
WILL BRING TO THE COURT AND THAT
IS AN UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO
BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO APPLY
THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF EACH
CASE.
TO BRING COLLEGIALITY TO THE
COURT AS WELL.
TO WORK WITH ALL OF THE JUSTICES
ON THE BENCH AS WE WRESTLE WITH
REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES.
>> THE TWO LIBERAL CANDIDATES
ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE DIRECTLY
COMPARED TO HAGEDORN BECAUSE
HE'S A CONSERVATIVE BUT DO LIKE
HIS IMAGE AS INDEPENDENT.
>> WHEN BRIAN KELLY CALLED OUT
HAGEDORN AS SUPREMELY UNRELIABLE
BECAUSE HE VOTED AGAINST THE
BLOCK AND EXERTED HIS
INDEPENDENT THOUGHT AND HE'S
LABELLED AS SUPREMELY
UNRELIABLE?
LIKE IT'S A BAD THING?
>> I SEE HIM DOING WHAT JUDGES
AND JUSTICES HOPEFULLY DO, DOES
NOT BECOME SO RIGID IN IDEOLOGY
YOU CAN'T LISTEN OR BE MOVED BY
THE FACTS IN FRONT OF YOU.
THAT'S WHAT WE ALL SHOULD AS
SPIRE TO BE ABLE TO DO IS MOVE
INSIDE THAT SPACE BECAUSE THE
FACTS CAN SOMETIMES PULL YOU IN
THE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
>> IF MITCHELL WINS THEY WOULD
CREATE A MAJORITY.
WOULD VOTERS EXPECT THEM TO
OCCASIONALLY FRUSTRATE
SUPPORTERS BY SHOWING
INDEPENDENCE?
>> I THINK THE IDEA YOU CAN
ANTICIPATE WHAT PEOPLE RULE IS
WHY OUR COURTS LOSE LEGITIMACY.
IT SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE
CURIOSITY OF THE FACTS BROUGHT
BEFORE YOU NOT PEOPLE SAYING
WELL, I KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD DO
AND EXACTLY HOW TO FRAME THE
CASE BASED ON WHO IS IN THE
SEAT.
>> BE INDEPENDENT IS WHAT
EVERYBODY SHOULD DO.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PRE
DETERMINE WHAT A SUPREME COURT'S
GOING TO DO.
THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THE
LAW, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION
AND YOU HEAR LOOK AT THIS.
ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS JUSTICE
HAGEDORN DIDN'T DO WHAT WE
THOUGHT HE'D DO AND NOW HE'S
SUPREMELY UNRELIABLE?
MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED