>> WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE JANET PROTASIEWICZ
REMAINS UNDER THE THREAT OF
IMPEACHMENT BY ASSEMBLY SPEAKER
ROBIN VOS WHO HAS NOW CREATED A
SECRET PANEL OF FORMER SUPREME
COURT JUSTICES TO STUDY THE
LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THE
PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT.
WE ARE JOINED NOW BY FORMER
JUSTICE JANINE GESKE.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
>> HAPPY TO BE HERE.
>> WE SHOULD START BY
ACKNOWLEDGING, YOU ARE NOT ONE
OF THE FORMER JUSTICES RECITE BY
THE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER, BUT WOULD
YOU HAVE JOINED THIS PANEL IF HE
HAD ASKED FOR YOUR INPUT ON THIS
ISSUE?
>> NO.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SUPREME
COURT JUSTICES OUGHT TO BE
GIVING AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER
ONE OF THEIR FORMER COLLEAGUES
SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.
IT'S A VERY BIZARRE PROCESS AND
I WOULD NOT HAVE CONSENTED TO
THAT.
>> NOW, THIS HAS TO DO WITH
COMMENTS THAT JANET PROTASIEWICZ
MADE BEFORE SHE WAS ELECTED
WHERE SHE CALLED THE CURRENT
ELECTORAL MAPS RIGGED.
AND APPARENTLY, THE LINKAGE THAT
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE IS
REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING IF SHE
AGREES TO HEAR A REDISTRICTING
CASE BUT DOES NOT RECUSE
HERSELF, THAT THAT WOULD
CONSTITUTE CORRUPT CONDUCT IN
OFFICE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE READING IN
TERMS OF WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO
REACH THIS THRESHOLD FOR
IMPEACHMENT?
>> I THINK THAT'S THEIR VERSION
OF THE ARGUMENT, YES.
>> SO WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?
HOW DO WE DEFINE CORRUPT CONDUCT
IN OFFICE?
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
A CRIME OR A MISDEMEANOR, WHICH
ARE THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF P.P.E.
IMPEACHMENT.
>> LET ME PEEL THIS BACK.
THE FIRST THING IS WHETHER OR
NOT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR HER
TO MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS DURING
THE CAMPAIGN AND THERE IS A
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE
THAT'S NOT VERY OLD, IT IS
ABSOLUTELY ON POINT, THAT SAYS A
JUDICIAL CANDIDATE CAN OFFER HIS
OR HER OPINIONS ON POLITICAL AND
LEGAL ISSUES.
THAT CASE, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH,
WAS BROUGHT BY THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY OF MINNESOTA AND WRITTEN
BY THE CONSERVATIVES OF THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT.
BUT ANYWAY, SO THERE'S NOTHING
APPROPRIATE IN WHAT SHE SAID.
SO THEN THE QUESTION IS, CAN SHE
RECUSE -- SHOULD SHE RECUSE
HERSELF ON THE CASE.
WELL, RECUSAL IN WISCONSIN IS
DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF OTHER
STATES BECAUSE OUR COURT, A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, ENACTED A
STATUTE OR A RULE THAT SAYS
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, FIRST OF
ALL, CANNOT BE REASON TO HAVE TO
RECUSE HERSELF.
AND SECONDLY, A JUDGE DECIDES
HIMSELF OR HERSELF WHETHER OR
NOT THEY OUGHT TO RECUSE
THEMSELVES.
SO THERE'S NO WEIGHT OF ANY
CORRUPT CONDUCT IN THIS, EVEN IF
SHE DECIDES TO SIT ON THE CASE.
>> SO FORMER JUSTICE DAVID
PROSSER IS THE ONLY JUSTICE TO
PUBLICLY SAY THAT THEY ARE A
PART OF THIS PROCESS.
DO YOU TRUST THAT HE'LL BE ABLE
TO DELIVER A REPORT BASED ON HIS
READING OF THE LAW?
OR WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF
ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THIS?
>> WELL, I HAVE RESPECT FOR
JUSTICE PROSSER.
HE AND I SERVED TOGETHER.
YOU KNOW, BUT PART OF IT IS THE
APPEARANCE.
RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT AT THE
SUPREME COURT AND IMPORTANT IN
THIS PROCESS, AND, YOU KNOW,
JUSTICE PROSSER CLEARLY WAS
ALIGNED WITH THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY AND, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF
ALL, I DON'T THINK THE JUSTICES
SHOULD BE DOING THIS,
NECESSARILY, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT
WOULD BE NICE TO PICK SOMEBODY
LIKE LOUIS BUTLER, WHO IS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE SPECTRUM.
I DON'T KNOW WHO -- I'VE GOT TO
GUESS AS TO WHO THE SECOND
PERSON IS AND DON'T KNOW WHO THE
THIRD PERSON IS, BUT I SUSPECT
THEY'RE GOING TO BE ALL ALIGNED
WITH SORT OF THE SAME
PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW AS THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY.
>> SO WITH THIS VAGUE CONCEPT OF
CORRUPT CONDUCT IN OFFICE AND
THIS IMPEACHMENT ELEMENT HAS NOT
BEEN TESTED IN THE COURTS IN
PASS FAKE, OBVIOUSLY, FOR MORE
THAN A CENTURY, SO IS IT LIKELY
THAT ANY ATTEMPT BY REPUBLICANS
IN THE LEGISLATURE TO BRING THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS FORWARD
WOULD END UP BACK BEFORE A
COURT?
WE'VE ALREADY SEEN ONE LAWSUIT
REGARDING THAT.
COULD THIS BE A FEDERAL COURT
ISSUE ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS?
HOW DOES THIS GET RESOLVED?
>> WELL, THIS IS WHAT I FEAR.
I FEAR THAT THEY WILL VOTE ON
IMPEACHMENT, AND WHEN YOU ARE
IMPEACHED UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTION, THE JUSTICE CAN NO
LONGER SIT ON CASES UNTIL
THERE'S A VOTE WHETHER TO ACQUIT
OR CONVICT.
AND I FEAR THAT THEY MAY DELAY
THAT VOTE AND THERE BE KNOCKING
HER OFF THE COURT AND HAVING
ONLY SIX MEMBERS OF THE COURT.
THAT'S WHERE I THINK THERE --
THERE IS AN INFRINGEMENT FROM
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ON THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH.
THEY'RE TRYING TO IMPACT A
PARTICULAR CASE WHEN TAKING
THESE ACTIONS.
IF THEY WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL AT
IMPEACHING HER, THEN THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY GET A
TWO-THIRDS VOTE TO BE ABLE TO
CONVICT HER.
YOU KNOW, IF THEY CONVICTED HER,
THEN IT WOULD HIT THE COURTS,
BUT ULTIMATELY COULD ALSO GO TO
THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE IT
INVOLVES FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO
GET THAT FAR.
I THINK THE REPUBLICAN
LEGISLATURE WANTS TO GET HER OFF
THAT CASE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
AND THIS IS THE MEANS THAT
THEY'RE USING.
>> SO WE'VE GOT LESS THAN A
MINUTE HERE, BUT NO MATTER, WHAT
IT TIES THE REPUTATION OF THE
COURTS EVEN CLOSER TO THE
POLITICAL PARTIES.
WHAT IS THE OUTCOME IN TERMS OF
VOTERS VIEWING THE SUPREME COURT
AS INDEPENDENT TODAY?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL,
JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ OBVIOUSLY
WON HER ELECTION HANDEDLY, HAD
11% ABOVE HER OPPONENT, AND I
THINK, YOU KNOW, NOW THE PEOPLE
ARE SAYING, WHY CAN'T SHE SIT ON
A CASE WHEN WE JUST ELECTED HER
TO THE POSITION.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, WE ARE
MISSING -- MESSING WITH
POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTISAN
VIEWS ON THE COURT AND IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT THE COURT
CONTINUE TO APPEAR UNBIASED,
IMPARTIAL, AND NON-POLITICAL
WHEN IT MAKES ITS DECISIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT.