INTEREST MONEY.
>> Frederica: ZAC SCHULTZ THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>>> IT'S SAID WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT ELECTION NON PARTISAN IN
NAME ONLY AND SEEMS MORE TRUE
NOW THAN EVER.
WHAT DOES A FORMER JUSTICE OF
THE HIGH COURT THINK OF THIS
TREND?
WE TURN TO JANNINE GESKE.
>> IT'S MY PLEASURE TO BE HERE.
WHAT DO I THINK?
>> Frederica: DO YOU THINK WE'VE
COME OUT OF THE GATES OF
PARTISAN POLITICS?
>> IT APPEARS THAT WAY FROM
ENDORSEMENTS TO THE MONEY BEING
PUT IN TO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT
WHAT THEIR VALUES AND THEIR
BELIEFS ARE.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE AND TO THE
LEFT THAT PEOPLE ARE RUNNING ON
ISSUES HOW THEY'RE GOING TO
VOTE.
TO ME THAT'S MORE A LEGISLATIVE
PARTISAN RACE THAN A SUPREME
COURT RACE.
I FIND IT VERY DISTRESSING.
>> Frederica: I WANT TO TALK
MORE ABOUT AND REMIND THE VIEWER
THERE'S A SUPPORTER OF ABORTION
RIGHTS AND SAID THE LEGISLATIVE
MAPS ARE RIGGED AND MAINTAINS
VOTERS WANT TO KNOW WHERE PEOPLE
STAND BUT YOU DON'T THINK SO.
>> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT -- AND
I UNDERSTAND.
WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN BELIEFS.
THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER PEOPLE
BELIEVE IT'S A SIGNAL HOW SHE'LL
VOTE.
THAT'S FINE IF THAT'S YOUR
VALUES BUT IF YOU'RE TAKING AN
OATH YOU'LL FOLLOW THE LAW
REGARDLESS OF OPINION EVEN IF
IT'S INCONSISTENT WHAT YOU MIGHT
VOTE FOR THAT'S WHAT A JUDGE
SHOULD DO.
I THINK BOTH CANDIDATES ARE
DOING THAT IN DIFFERENT WAYS OF
ING INDICATING OR HINTING WHERE
THEY MIGHT VOTE BUT THE
ELECTORATE WILL BELIEVE THE
ISSUE IS ON THE BALLOT VERSUS
CANDIDATE AND WE WANT JUDGE TO
LOOK AT EACH CASE INDEPENDENTLY
AND WHETHER THEIR SUPPORTERS
LIKE IT OR NOT COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THEY BELIEVE IS
RIGHT.
>> Frederica: FORMER JUSTICE
KELLY ISN'T EXACTLY NON
PARTISAN.
HE'S WORKED FOR BOTH STATE AND
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTIES
INCLUDING ADVISING ON THE FAKE
ELECTOR SCHEME HERE IN WISCONSIN
AND YET HE SAYS THIS VIRTUE
SIGNALLING, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED,
MAKES THE JUDGE NOT COMMITTED TO
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.
IS THAT -- DO YOU THINK THAT'S
FAIR.
>> NO, I THINK BOTH CANDIDATES
ARE DOING IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS
AND I THINK THERE ARE NOT PEOPLE
WHO ARE DOUBTING WHERE JUSTICE
KELLY INDICATES HE MIGHT BE ON
ISSUES.
HE'S DOING IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS
AND SHOWED IN DIFFERENT WAYS HOW
HE'S WORKED AND WHO HE'S
REPRESENTED AND WHAT ISSUES HE'S
TAKEN ON.
I THINK THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO
ASK IS IF YOUR LEGAL CONCLUSION
COMES TO A DIFFERENT RESULT THAN
WHAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING NOW, ARE
YOU WILLING TO DO THAT?
IF YOU CAN'T YOU SHOULDN'T SIT
THE CASES.
I THINK THEY'RE BOTH GIVING THE
FEELING ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE ON
ISSUES.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
AS LONG AS VOTERS UNDERSTAND
THEIR OATH IS TO DECIDE
SOMETIMES INCONSISTENTLY WITH
WHAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE.
>> Frederica: DOES IT SEEM LIKE
A CHARADE THEN TO SUGGEST
NEITHER SIDE WOULD QUOTE,
LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH?
>> I'M NOT DOUBTING THE
INTEGRITY OF THE CANDIDATES.
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS HOW
THE CAMPAIGNS GET SHAPED SO
PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
ELECTED.
AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WE CAN POINT
TO JUSTICE KELLY'S VIEW TO
JUSTICE HAGEDORN AND WHEN HE
REFERS TO HIM HE TALKS ABOUT HIM
NOT BEING TRUSTWORTHY OR
RELIABLE BECAUSE HE WASN'T
RELIABLY CONSERVATIVE MEANING
JUSTICE HAGEDORN CAME TO A
DIFFERENT DECISION.
SOME PEOPLE CALL THEM TRAITORS
AND PROFOUNDLY DISAPPOINTED ON
JUSTICE HAGEDORN ON THE RESULTS
OF HIS CASES AND PEOPLE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO DO THAT
WHEN YOU'RE A JUDGE AND PEOPLE
MAY NOT ALWAYS BE HAPPY WITH THE
RESULT.
>> Frederica: WHAT HAPPENED TO
THE DAYS OF CANDIDATES FOR THE
SUPREME COURT SAYING THEY
COULDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE
THAT ISSUE MAY COME BEFORE THEM?
IT SOUNDS ALMOST QUAINT TODAY.
>> IT WASN'T QUAINT IT WAS TRUE.
THERE ARE TIMES I PUBLICLY
TALKED ABOUT CASES THAT MY VOTE
WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I
WOULD HAVE DONE IF I WERE VOTING
AT THE BALLOT BOX.
THERE ARE TIMES SOMETIMES I
WOULD WRITE A CONCURRENCE OR
ANOTHER OPINION SAYING I WISH
THE LEGISLATURE WOULD LOOK AT
THIS AND CHANGE THINGS BUT THIS
IS HOW I INTERPRETED IT AS A
JUDGE.
THE RISK IS PEOPLE WILL THINK
YOU'RE ELECTING PEOPLE ON A
DELIVERABLE IS UNFORTUNATE.
I'M ACTUALLY BECOMING AN
ADVOCATE FOR APPOINTMENT OF
JUDGES.
I THINK WE'VE GONE WAY OVER THE
LINE OF TRYING TO ELECT FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL JUDGES THAT PEOPLE CAN
HAVE CONFIDENCE IN.
>> Frederica: WHAT'S THIS MEAN
INCLUDING THE HIGH STAKES,
HIGH-SPENDING NATURE OF THIS
RACE REPORTEDLY PROJECTED TO BE
THE MOST EXPENSIVE JUDICIAL
ELECTION IN THE UNITED STATES?
WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN FOR THE
INTEGRITY IN YOUR MIND OF THE
COURT?
>> I THINK IT IMPACTS THE
INTEGRITY OF THE COURT AND FAITH
PEOPLE HAVE IN THE INDEPENDENCE
OF THE JUDICIARY.
IT RIPPLES DOWN TO THE TRIAL
COURTS.
IT'S NOT JUST THE SUPREME COURT
THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THINK
JUDGE RESPOND TO THEIR
SUPPORTERS AND THAT CERTAIN
PARTIES WILL WIN BECAUSE OF WHO
IS SITTING ON THE BENCH.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS
WANTED.
I THINK THEY WANTED JUDGE
INVOLVED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES
AND PEOPLE RESPECTED KNEW AND
COMMITTED THEIR LIVES TO PUBLIC
SERVICE AND NOW WE HAVE ADS AND
THINGS GIVING US THE SENSE WE'RE
ELECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO
REPRESENT CERTAIN INTERESTS.