>> The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original
production. >> Fierce winter snowfall across
the state and more jarring federal actions hit close to
home. [MUSIC]
I'm Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on "Here& Now" we continue our
coverage of candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And as
the dominoes fall from Washington, vital medical
research hangs in the balance. Legal experts warn of executive
overreach, and farmers are left holding the bag.
[MUSIC] It's "Here& Now" for February
14th. >> Funding for here and Now is
provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS
Wisconsin. >> The race for a seat on the
Wisconsin Supreme Court could break spending records. And
tonight we bring you an interview with Liberal candidate
Susan Crawford. Crawford is currently a Dane County Circuit
court judge. She previously worked for Democrat Jim Doyle,
both when he was the attorney general and as his chief legal
counsel when Doyle was governor. Here and now, senior political
reporter. Zac Schultz sat down with Crawford in Madison.
>> Let's start with your judicial philosophy. How would
you define it, and what does it mean to you?
>> Yeah. You know, I view myself as a really common sense judge.
So I focus on, first of all, making sure that I know what the
facts are. In any case. I've listened to the evidence and
just determine what the truth is. I think that's a really
important first step for any judge. And then, of course, I
make sure I get the law right after listening to the lawyers
tell me what their positions are. And then I have to make a
decision after I have those two things established and I pay a
lot of attention to how my decision is going to impact the
people in a case. The decisions I make are not abstract
principles. They are going to affect real people's lives. So I
do pay close attention to the context of my decisions. And
taking that up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I will also
consider how the decisions that I'm involved in as a justice
will be applied in future cases, because at the Supreme Court
level, those cases are precedent. And you have to think
ahead to other applications. >> For the general public that
doesn't have a lot of interaction with the legal
system. They've kind of developed the shorthand of
judicial, conservative or judicial liberal. And that's
often we define the breakdown in the Supreme Court. How would you
define the distinction between those two categories if there is
one? of shorthand is actually not
that useful. What I do is just try to be fair and impartial in
every case and apply the law to, you know, the facts that I've
determined to be true in the way that does justice and protects
the interests in the case, the people in the case, the way the
law was intended. >> There's been a lot of
overturning of precedent recently, both at the national
and at the state level. >> Yes.
>> What are the factors that you would look at when you decide to
overturn a case history? >> Yeah, well, I have not been
in a position to do that, of course, because I'm a currently
a circuit court judge. And on the circuit court, we are
required to apply precedent. I think that as a justice on the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, what I would do, first of all, if asked
to overturn precedent, is to consider what the attorney's
arguments are in favor or against doing so. You know,
typically, justices are not coming to that conclusion on
their own. They're doing it because one of the parties in
the case is asking them to overturn a prior precedent on
grounds that it was wrongly decided. So the first thing I
would do in a particular case is determine how I think the law
ought to be applied. In that case, and often there's not a
need to actually overturn a precedent, but rather to
distinguish it, to say, well, there are some different facts
in that case, and maybe it should be applied more narrowly
or there's an exception that can be made in this new case. So I
think it's a rare instance where a precedent actually has to be
overturned. But, you know, I would do the same thing I just
described. I would look at the facts of the case, listen to the
legal arguments on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I would certainly
listen to what my fellow justices had to say and what
their positions were before making an important decision
like that to actually overturn a precedent.
>> In a couple of recent cases regarding redistricting, at
least with the least change factor, and also drop boxes.
They overruled some recent precedent. Does it make a
difference how long the precedent has been there?
>> Well, I don't think it does necessarily. I think it's a
factor, but it is certainly not the only factor and probably not
the most important one that I'd be looking at in making such a
decision. >> And then how do you contrast
that to something like the Dobbs decision, which obviously
precedent? think the Dobbs case was wrongly
decided, and it represents the first time, to my knowledge,
that the United States Supreme Court has ever undone a long
standing, constitutionally vested right recognized under
our U.S. Constitution. And I think that the case was poorly
reasoned by the majority on the Supreme Court. And that's very
well laid out in the dissent to that case.
>> Brad Schimel partisan history as a candidate is well
documented. It's right next to his name on every election. But
you've worked in Democratic administrations, both in the
attorney general and the governor's office and in private
practice. You have argued cases on behalf of issues that align
with the Democratic Party. And he argues that you are just as
partisanly aligned. How do you respond to that?
>> Well, I think he's wrong. He I have never been involved in
partisan politics, either as a candidate or with any
involvement personally at either the county or state or national
level in partisan politics. That's Brad Schimmel's whole
career. And again, he, you know, he betrays his partisan roots by
taking positions on every case that is pending just about in
front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, telling folks how he
would decide them in a way, that is, you know, he's prejudging
those cases. That's very prejudicial to the parties in
those cases, particularly when he, I believe, is making those
decisions based on what he reads in the newspaper and not on the
evidence in those cases or the legal arguments of the parties
or any deliberations. Obviously, with other justices on the
Wisconsin Supreme Court. So there's a very sharp contrast in
how we are approaching this race. I'm approaching it as a
judge, and I want to be a good, fair, impartial, common sense
justice for the people of Wisconsin. Brad Schimel is
approaching it as if it was a partisan race, and says he wants
to get on the Supreme Court to help conservatives win
elections. >> In 2023. Janet Protasiewicz
talked about her values when she was running, and that brought a
new attention and a new approac, as opposed to prior candidates
in that race. Do you think it was appropriate for her to talk
about her values? Are you wanting to talk about your
values? How does that reframe the public's expectation of a
candidate for this office? >> Yeah. Well, I think first of
all, that Janet Protasiewicz is a real asset to the Supreme
Court. I think she is doing a great job, and I think that she
also handled herself well in her campaign. You know, this is a
different race. And I, I want voters to get to know me and get
to know who I am and what kind of justice they can expect me to
be on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So there are appropriate
ways for candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court or any
court to talk about their experience, what they've worked
for and their values. And I will do that. But I will stop short
of taking a position on any case in or or likely to be in the
Wisconsin Supreme Court. I think that's improper. And again, it's
prejudging cases is prejudicial to the parties and unfortunately
is what my opponent is doing. >> Judge Crawford, thanks for
your time. >> Thank you so much, Zach.
>> In other news, a Trump administration policy to limit
the overhead expenses of medical research has powerhouse research
universities like UW-Madison reeling. Most medical research
is funded by the National Institutes for health. The new
policy would limit NIH funding for indirect costs to 15%, far
below the 55.5% overhead costs at Madison. The cut is currently
blocked by a federal court. UW School of Medicine and Public
Health Dean Robert Golden is here to describe the
implications. And doctor, thanks very much for being here.
>> It's a pleasure. >> So what would the loss of $65
million, which is what I understand. It is a year by way
of cuts to these indirect costs mean to research at UW-Madison.
>> This would be devastating. This would be apocalyptic. This
would mean that we would have to dramatically scale back and
probably end really important research, going from the bench
to the bedside, into the community in areas like cancer,
diabetes, heart disease and neurologic illnesses.
>> So UW lists those costs again as being 55.5% of its research
expenditures. What what does that go toward?
>> Well, here's one way to think about it. It's Valentine's Day,
and I'm going to cook dinner for Shannon to celebrate when I go
out and buy the groceries, the eggs and the cheese for a
quiche. Those are direct costs, but I need to have a
refrigerator to keep them safe. I need to be paying my electric
bills in order to have the cookware work. And so the
indirect costs are literally freezers that literally keep
things safe for both clinical as well as pre-clinical research.
And they are essential. Otherwise the food goes bad and
you can't prepare dinner. >> So is it possible to reduce
those costs to 15%? And if forced, what goes?
>> Well, the infrastructure goes our equipment becomes old and
not replaced. New buildings are not built. Renovations for both
equipment and the actual buildings are not there. The
staff who are required to fill out all the forms for the
federal government, ensuring that our people in the labs are
safe cannot be kept on. So it would be absolutely devastating.
>> And yet it's being made out as bloated, administrative
expenditures to pad the books on the backs of taxpayers. What's
your response to that? >> Anybody who has been in
academics, anybody who has been in research, would never use a
shoestring. Living on the edge, funding already is so
competitive and so low that every day, every investigator is
looking for more efficient ways for her to keep her research
going. >> What research is happening
right now that would be hurt? >> Oh, we have important
clinical trials in cancer, for example, for patients who have
failed to respond to conventional treatments. These
are important not simply for the science, but for those
individual patients. We have new promising treatments that have
gone from basic discoveries into practice, looking at potential
new therapies for blinding illness. We have a lot of
research that really focuses in on asthma and childhood asthma
in particular, nationally renowned research. All of this,
including the laboratory basic science that leads to new
therapeutics, as well as the clinical trials looking for
safety and effectiveness, would be at serious risk.
>> What are some of the kind of famous breakthroughs found
through research at UW-Madison? >> Well, in fact, one of the
very first medications for cancer treatment, five
fluorouracil, was discovered right here. We have also had
amazing technological breakthroughs with TomoTherapy,
a sophisticated way of doing imaging that not only has helped
countless patients worldwide, but has led to spin off
companies, it's built up our economy. There are so many
exciting new breakthroughs going on, but they build on a
tradition that has been present here ever since the founding of
the NIH. >> So the cuts are currently
blocked, as we mentioned. What measure of solace is that?
>> Well, it's just a temporary reprieve. We do hope you have to
be hopeful in order to be an academic. Nowadays, that patient
voices, voices of reason will lead to a more than temporary
restraint. It's not to say that our system is perfect. It's one
of the best in the world. But there might be ways to continue
what's already happening, to look for the most efficient ways
that we can continue to invest in research so that we're
investing in the health of people and populations.
>> All right. Doctor Robert Golden, thanks very much.
>> Thank you. >> As to the NIH funding cuts,
the universities of Wisconsin president said taking a meat
cleaver to funding is wrong. Well, it's happening throughout
U.S. Agencies at the hands of Elon Musk and President Trump.
And now there are calls to impeach judges who are
temporarily blocking some of the cost cutting moves. Is any of
this constitutional, given the separation of powers? We turn to
conservative attorney Rick Esenberg, president of the
Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. And thanks very much
for being here. >> Thank you for having me on.
>> So how do these moves to eliminate agencies and spending
square with the separation of powers under the Constitution?
>> Yeah, I think it's fair to say that the answer is mixed.
There are some things that the president clearly has, or a
reasonable argument can be made that he ought to have the power
to do. And there are some things that are more problematic. You
mentioned the unilateral reduction in overhead costs for
us. NIH grants. That probably violates a statute and that
Congress can constitutionally impose on the president. There's
other instances where the president is pausing funding to
review the way that a congressional mandate is being
carried out, which are defensible. There are yet other
areas where we don't know what's going to happen. I mean, there
are tweets in which, you know, claims are made that USAID can
be is going to be abolished. You probably can't do that. But can
you redirect its funding consistent with congressional
appropriations? Yeah, you probably can do that. So this is
why I say that all of this stuff is dependent upon the particular
context in which it arises, and precisely what's being done. And
in some instances, we don't really know yet. And the
criticism that we're hearing is premature. And yet other
instances, the criticism is well taken.
people like Musk saying that judges are abusing their power
and calling to impeach them for making decisions, like around
temporary injunctions? >> Well, I think that's
ridiculous. I mean, I think that there are always going to be
disputes about the extent of executive authority. There are a
whole sorts of disputes during the Biden administration where
the president, you know, claimed the right to be able to
unilaterally do a bunch of things and litigation ensued and
the courts ruled. And oftentimes the Biden administration lost.
Sometimes it won. And I think the same thing is, is going to
happen here. And I think to say that judges who disagree or have
a different view of what the law requires ought to be impeached
for their, you know, for trying to do their jobs is something
that I, I can't endorse. And I'm not I'm not on board with.
>> So there is reporting that the Trump administration has
been flouting judges orders. How perilous is that or is it?
>> Well, I don't know that they have been flouting judges
orders. I mean, I think you had a tweet. I think it was a tweet
by JD Vance, which, you know, people have interpreted as
expressing an intent to flout judicial orders. That would be
wrong. On the other hand, you have comments by, you know,
President Trump and the Oval Office that he always abides by
judicial orders. And so, you know, there can sometimes be and
have sometimes in American history been conflicts between
the executive and the judicial branch about, you know, the
extent of judicial authority. But as a general rule, I think
that the executive, the president of the United States
controls the executive branch, the of the United States does
not control the government. There are going to be disputes
about where the boundaries between these things lie and
those disputes. And there's a dispute, those disputes are
ultimately to be resolved by the judiciary. That's our separation
of powers. And I think that that's what we ought to have
guide us as we go forward in the argument about all of this
stuff. >> Indeed. Rick Esenberg, thanks
very much. >> Thank you.
>> Despite promises from President Trump to target
undocumented immigrants with a criminal record, pressure on
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to make
arrests expands that scope. Fears remain high as stories
spread on social media that members of tribes in Wisconsin
have been stopped by Ice officials to ease concerns.
Ho-Chunk nation President John Greendeer has promised his
people free tribal IDs, as well as reimbursement for the cost to
obtain a US passport. >> The United States passport is
probably what I feel is the most legitimate form of in
universally accepted form of identification. And so the
scrutiny for securing your passport is, is pretty
significant. I tried to do my best to articulate that the
passport will be available to tribal members and their
children, whether or not they are enrolled in rollable or not
enrolled. And you have to be strong for a family, but you
send your brown kids out the door and you don't have control
over, you know, their environment. You know, we and
this is something that is endemic to a lot of tribal
communities that we worry about our kids every day before Ice.
You know, we didn't need ice to scare us and make us feel
uneasy. As parents. >> Wisconsin farmers are likely
on edge watching the slashing and freezing of federal funding,
billions of dollars of which goes toward farm programs.
President of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, Darin Von Ruden
joins us, and thanks for being here.
>> So in the midst of moves to eliminate things like world food
aid, freeze federal grants and loans, and the latest
congressional resolution to cut the USDA budget, how on edge are
Wisconsin farmers? >> Well, I think really on edge,
you know, especially looking at folks that have applied for
grants in the past, mainly in the renewable energy side. We
have a next door neighbor that installed the system this
summer. Just put it online here. A few weeks ago and got a notice
on Tuesday morning that the $70,000 grant that he was
supposed to be receiving from the federal government is now on
hold. So, you know, that's not pocket change. It's not
something that you can just go out and make up in a couple
days. So, you know, we're really hoping that the freeze gets
taken back and that those funds get distributed. But then also
looking at what's happening with the USA aid aid program, we
haven't heard directly from any farmers here in the state of
Wisconsin, but certainly from some of the other states around
the upper Midwest and corn and soybean programs that are
involved in that really on edge, because they've become
accustomed to providing those corn and soybeans for that
program. >> Yeah, indeed. So the first
program you talked about with the $70,000 investment, this is
the kind of grant program where the farmers are supposed to be
reimbursed for work. They've already done.
>> Yeah, it's the renewable Energy for America program. And,
you know, it's a long standing program. It's not like it's new.
It's been around for a dozen. Well, probably 15 years already.
And it's really to help put solar and wind on your either on
your buildings or on your property and, and get some help
with it. It isn't like it's paying for the whole system. It
just provides a little bit more of an incentive to get it
installed. anything to do with climate
mitigation or alternative energy will, in fact be on the chopping
block. >> You know, with the words
coming out of the president's mouth? I think it's a real good
chance that that's going to happen.
>> So as farmers also look ahead to spring planting, what is the
uncertainty like? >> Well, it's pretty high right
now, you know, because of really two factors. If the USAID
program does get stalled, that's just going to back up a supply
chain. There's a lot of corn and soybeans that go into that
market. And so that just means lower prices anytime that there
is excess food, it's going to mean lower prices. And
fertilizer and all our input costs certainly are not going
down with some of the tariff trade war talks. Those prices
are probably just going to go up. So we're going to continue
to see that difference of not being able to pay our bills at
the end of the month. >> Just taking a little bit of a
turn here. We keep reading that that bird flu is on the
increase. What are dairy farmers thinking about that?
>> Well, you know, very concerned. And you know, on two
fronts there are two, I think number one, not knowing when
it's going to stop or if it's going to infect your herd. But
number two, being able to get the accurate information that we
need because of another one of the things that President Biden
or President Trump has done, and taking that information away
from the Public health service. >> Are you getting any of that
kind of information from state ag officials?
>> Yes. They've been good about trying to continue to keep that
information in front of us. And I know that gap has a weekly
information meeting for anybody in agriculture that wants to
participate. So we've been able to get that there. But when
you're looking at that disease, it really is affecting all the
countries. So trying to figure out where the spread is going to
next is vital. And that takes national help to get that done.
>> So we've been talking about all manner of kind of
uncertainties. What are your members telling you in the midst
of this? >> Well, you know, certainly
understand that there's some things that do need to happen,
but certainly the amount or the variability that is happening,
you know, we can adjust to certain amounts of things, but
with what we're seeing right no, that uncertainty on, you know,
five, six, seven, maybe even eight fronts is totally
different than what we've seen in the past. You know, we
certainly can handle that 1 or 2 different things that might
affect your bottom line. But when you have so many different
things all at once, it gets really scary.
>> All right. Well, we will be watching it. Darin Von Ruden
thanks very much. >> Thank you Fredricka.
>> For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit
our website at PBS Wisconsin and then click on the news tab. Join
us Tuesday for Governor Tony Evers 2025 State Budget address.
It's live at 7 p.m. On PBS Wisconsin.
That's our program for tonight. I'm Frederica Freyberg. Have a
good weekend. >> Funding for "Here& Now" is
provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS
Wisconsin.