JASON STEIN, THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> TURNING TO THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT, ACRIMONY AMONG
JUSTICES HAS HIT A FEVER PITCH
IN RECENT WEEKS.
>> WITH THE LIBERAL WING NEWLY
IN THE MAJORITY CONSERVATIVES
ARE EXPRESSING THE STING OF
BEING IN THE 4-3 MINORITY.
THERE ARE ACTIONS CAUSING THE
IN-FIGHTING LIKE THE LIBERAL
JUSTICES FIRING AND REPLACING A
COURT DIRECTOR.
BUT THE ESSENTIAL OUTRAGE FOR
CONSERVATIVES HAS TO DO WITH THE
FACT THAT NEW LIBERAL JUSTICE
JAN
JANUARY P. WAS EL ELECTEDED
WHERE SHE SAID THE VOTING MAPS
WERE RIGGED AND UNFAIR.
REPUBLI
REPUBLICANS HER TO RECUSE OVER
THE MAPS AND IF SHE DOESN'T
THREATEN TO IMPEACH HER.
A LIBERAL LAW FIRM SAID IN A
COURT FILING OVER THE MATTER,
QUOTE, UNHAPPY WITH THIS
ELECTORAL RESULT WHICH THEY
COULD NOT PREVENT THROUGH
GERRYMANDERING, REPUBLICANS SEEK
TO NULLIFY THE RESULTS AND PICK
THEIR JUSTICES.
THIS IS JUST THE LATEST PRECINCT
DUST-UP IN WISCONSIN.
A HIGH COURT HISTORICALLY KNOWN
AS NON-PARTISANSHIP AND COLLIE
JAL.
WHEN DID IT BECOME A PROXY FOR
POLITIC S? WE TURN TO ZAK, OUR
CORRESPONDENT.
>> HELLO.
>> THE IDEA OF IMPEACHING A
JUSTICE SEEMS FARFETCHED BUT
GIVEN THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY,
MAYBE NOT.
WHERE IS THIS RIGHT NOW?
>> NOW IT IS IN THE LAND OF
THREATS AND ALLEGATIONS AND
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW FAR THIS
WILL GO.
IT COULD GET SERIOUS VERY FAST.
THE ASSEMBLY REPUBLICANS COULD
PASS THIS AND LIKELY GET PASSED
IN THE CHAMBER.
WHETHER IT GO TO THE SENATE AND
HAVING ALL IN THE SENATE VOTE TO
IMPEACH SEEMS MORE QUESTIONABLE
THAN WHETHER THE ASSEMBLY COULD
DO IT.
BUT THEN THERE'S QUESTIONS OF
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MEANTIME.
EVEN IF THERE IS IMPEACHMENT
CHARGES BROUGHT FORWARD IS THAT
ENOUGH TO THROW ENOUGH CHAOS OR
SLOW A PROCESS THAT PERHAPS
REDISTRICTING MAPS TALKED ABOUT,
IF THE COURT TAKES THE CASE, MAY
NOT BE IN EFFECT UNTIL AFTER
2024, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WHAT
REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
DELAY CHANGES TO MAPS THAT GIVE
THEM THEIR POWER.
>> INDEED.
WE THINK OF THIS AS A MAJOR
IMPOSSIBLY AND UNSEEMLY KIND OF
FIGHT WITH MAJOR IMPLICATIONS
BUT IT IS NOT THE FIRST TROUBLE
THE SUPREME COURT HAS SPILLED
INTO THE PUBLIC EYE.
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
THIS COURT HAS HAD A TROUBLED
HISTORY, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO
SAY, THE LAST 15, 16 YEARS.
WE HAD ONE JUSTICE ACCUSED OF
CHOKING ANOTHER JUSTICE INSIDE
THE CAPITOL.
THAT WENT ALL THE WAY BACK UP TO
THE COURT OF WHETHER HE SHOULD
LOSE HIS SEAT IN THAT CASE.
SO THERE HAVE BEEN ALL SORTS OF
DUST-UPS AND ALLEGATIONS.
I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THE
SPEED OF WHICH SOME OF THESE
ALLEGATIONS ARE COMING OUT.
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS MOST OF
THIS KIND OF SNIDE REMARKS AND
SNIPPING AT EACH OTHER HAS BEEN
DONE IN THE FOOTNOTES OF
DECISIONS.
THE MAJOR DECISION WILL COME
OUT.
THEN A JUSTICE IN THEIR
COMMENTARY WILL TAKE A POT SHOT
OR TWO AT SOMEONE ELSE THEY
THINK SHOULD AGREE WITH THEM OR
SAYING HOW THEY DON'T ACTUALLY
UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
NOW THIS IS HAPPENING AT THE
SPEED OF E-MAIL, IN PART BECAUSE
THE SPEED OF THE CHANGE IS SO
MUCH FASTER.
CONSERVATIVES ON THE COURT AND
REPUBLICAN SUPPORTERSES OUT IN
THE PUBLIC WANT THIS INFORMATION
NOW FASTER.
THEY ARE RELEASING IT FASTER.
INSTEAD OF HAPPENING IN THE
BACKGROUND AND COMING OUT SLOWLY
OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, WE ARE
GETTING IT ALMOST AS IT HAPPENS.
>> I SAID HISTORICALLY THE COURT
WAS KNOWN TO AT LEAST PROJECT
NON-PARTISANSHIP COLLEGIALITY,
WHEN DID THAT CHANGE?
>> A LOT WILL LOOK BACK TO 2007
WHEN THERE WAS AN OPEN SEAT.
LINDA CLIFFORD AS LIBERAL AND
ANNETTE ZEIGLER, THE CURRENT
JUSTICE RUNNING AS A
CONSERVATIVE FOR THAT SEAT,
COMING OFF A PERIOD WHERE SOME
OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS MADE A
POLITICAL IMPACT.
ONE WAS THE LEAD PAINT IMPACT
WHICH ALLOWED A LOT OF PAINT
MANUFACTURERS TO BE SUED.
THEY DID NOT LIKE THAT.
IN THAT RACE WISCONSIN
MANUFACTURERS IN COMMERCE, THE
BUSINESS LOBBY, DUMPED A TON OF
MONEY INTO THAT RACE AND THE
FIRST TIME WE SAW HEAVY HITTER
GROUPS PUT A POLITICAL SLANT ON
A RACE AND IMPACT THE FINAL
MARGIN.
IT WENT FROM THERE.
THE NEXT YEAR WE SAW JUSTICE --
BECAME JUSTICE GABLE RUN ONE OF
THE MOST RACIST ADDS IN HISTORY
IN DEFEATING BUTLER AND SINCE
THEN THEY HAVE BECOME MORE
PROXIES FOR PARTIES.
BEFORE THAT YOU SAW CANDIDATES
KEEP PARTIES ALMOST AT ARM'S
LENGTH SAYING WE DON'T WANT YOUR
HELP OR ENDORSED BY YOU.
JUSTICE PROSSER AT ONE POINT
TOLD ME HE WASN'T A CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICAN ANYMORE BUT
CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHER AFTER HE WAS THE
ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN SPEAKER SO
PEOPLE REALLY TRIED TO KEEP
DISTANCE FROM PARTIES.
BUT OVER THE LAST DECADE IF YOU
WANT TO WIN YOU NEED THE PARTY
APPARATUS TO FUNDS THOSE ADS AND
USE TO GET OUT THE VOTE
OPERATIONS DOOR-TO-DOOR.
THAT'S BECOME MORE AND MORE
CLEAR IN EVERY ELECTION SINCE
THEN.
>> AS TO JUSTICE P. THE OTHER
COMPANY WAS ABORTION RIGHTS.
COULDN'T THE CURRENT RECUSAL
IMPEACHMENT BATTLE REPEAT IF SHE
IS NOT SIZE LINED FIRST?
>> YOU COULD SEE THAT.
I THINK ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ISSUE OF REDISTRICTING AND
ABORTION IS REDISTRICTING
ACTUALLY THREATENS POWER OF
REPUBLICANS TO KEEP THEIR
MAJORITY.
IF MAPS CHANGE, THEY WILL LOSE
SEATS.
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
THEY WILL LOSE SEATS IN THE
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY.
WHETHER THEY LOSE THE MAJORITY
ISN'T CLEAR, DEPENDS ON THE
MAPS, BUT WILL LEASE SEATS AND
POWER.
IF THE ABORTION SITUATION
CHANGES THERE ARE SOME
CONSERVATIVES SAYING THAT IS
BETTER, PERHAPS TAKING THAT
ISSUE OFF THE TABLE.
WE HAVE SEEN WHAT THE ISSUE OF
ABORTION HAS DONE TO ENERGIZE
INDEPENDENT YOUNG WOMEN, YOUNG
VOTERS, MODERATE REPUBLICANS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS
IN THIS BUILD ING THAT WILL
PUBLICLY SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO
SEE ABORTION IN WISCONSIN
PROOI
PRIVATELY IN NON-FACTOR.
IF THE SUPREME COURT DID THAT
THEY WOULDN'T FEEL BAD IF THEY
KEPT MAJORITIES.
>> IN THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
THEMSELVES NOW GET TO DECIDE
WHETHER TO RECUSE.
HOW DOES THAT FACTOR HERE?
>> WELL, IT FACTORS IN THAT WE
DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS COMING
FORWARD, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE
THAT WILL GET STALLED.
MORE THAN LIKELY LIKE EVERYTHING
ELSE, THERE WILL BE A LAWSUIT
FILED AT SOME POINT SAYING THIS
ISN'T LEGAL, YOU DON'T HAVE THE
RIGHTS TO DO THAT OR THE GROUNDS
TO DO THAT.
THERE WILL BE PEOPLE TRYING TO
THROW A WRENCH WOULD IT COULD
POTENTIALLY TAKE JUSTICE
PROTASIEWICZ OFF THE BUNCH.
IT COULD GO TO THE COURT AND
COULD BE PROTASIEWICZ SAYING
WHETHER OR NOT TO RECUSE HERSELF
FROM A CASE THAT WOULD REFLECT
ON HER.
WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE PAST.
THE CONSERVATIVE NOW MINORITY
HAD OPTIONS IN THE PAST TO PASS
CLEAR RECUSAL RULES AND
DECLINED.
THEY ALWAYS WANTED TO BE LEFT UP
TO INDIVIDUALS.
FRANKLY, THEY HAVE SAT ON PLENTY
OF CASES THAT INVOLVED THEIR
CAMPAIGN DONORS AND THEIR
SUPPORTERS AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BROUGHT THEM THROUGH.
EVERYONE IN THIS BUILDING IS
CONNECTED TO POLITICS.
EVERYONE ON THE BENCH IS
CONNECTED TO POLITICS IN ONE WAY
OR THE OTHER.
WHILE THEY SIT IN CHAMBERS THEY
WANT TO BE NON-PARTISANSHIP BUT
THAT IS NOT THE REALITY OF
POLITICS THAT SURROUNDS AND
ENGULFS THEM IN ALL THE