>> 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.