ON APRIL 2 VOTERS WILL CHOOSE
BETWEEN TWO APPEALS COURT JUDGES
TO REPLACE RETIRING JUSTICE
SHIRLEY ABRAHAMSON.
WE INTERVIEWED LISA NEUBAUER TWO
WEEKS AGO.
TONIGHT WE'LL CHAT WITH BRIAN
HAGEDORN, WHO SERVES ON THE
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS.
HE CL NE CLERKED UNDER JUSTICE
GABLEMAN AND SERVED UNDER WALKER
BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS.
JUDGE HAGEDORN, THANKS FOR YOUR
TIME TODAY.
>> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.
>> WHY ARE YOU RUNNING FOR THE
SUPREME COURT?
>> I'M RUNNING FOR THE SUPREME
COURT BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE NEED
A JUSTICE WHO'S GOING TO DEFEND
THE RULE OF LAW, UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION AND PROTECT THE
PUBLIC.
BY DEFENDING THE RULE OF THE
LAW, THE JOB OF A JUDGE IS TO
SAY WHAT THE LAW IS.
WE SHOULD GET PARTISAN POLITICS
OUT OF THE COURT.
SAME THING WITH UPHOLDING THE
CONSTITUTION.
YOU UPHOLD THE WORDS AS WRITTEN,
PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS, LIKE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RE FREEDOM OF
RELIGION.
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC, WE HAVE A
DRUG CRISIS.
THE OPIOID CRISIS AS WELL AS THE
METH CRISIS THAT'S ALL OVER THE
STATE.
TALKING TO SHERIFFS, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, PROUD TO HAVE THE
SUPPORT OF 44 SHERIFFS ACROSS
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, FAR MORE
THAN MY OPPONENT.
AND THIS IS A PRESSING ISSUE.
>> THAT'S INTERESTING YOU BRING
THAT UP.
HOW DO HEROIN AND METH PLAY INTO
THE SUPREME COURT?
WHAT COULD YOU DO AS A JUSTICE?
>> WELL, IT'S A LITTLE PERSONAL
TO ME.
I'VE BEEN MARRIED FOR 17 YEARS.
I HAVE FIVE CHILDREN.
MY YOUNGEST GIRL IS LILY.
SHE'S FIVE.
SHE WAS BORN ADDICTED TO DRUGS.
WE ADOPTED HER.
WE WERE THERE IN THE HOSPITAL
WITH HER.
AND SHE WAS ADDICTED TO O OPIATES.
THAT STORY IS REPEATED ALL
ACROSS THE STATE.
PART OF WHAT YOU DO ON THE COURT
IS YOU'RE LISTENING TO ON FOLKS
EVERYWHERE AND BEING A PART OF
THAT CONVERSATION.
UNQUESTIONABLY WHEN I'M TALKING
TO JUDGES, PROSECUTORS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT, THIS IS ONE OF THE
TOP THINGS ON THEIR MINDS.
SO THERE'S PILOT PROJECTS THAT
CAN AND ARE BEING DONE, DRUG
TREATMENT COURTS.
THERE'S FUNDING ISSUES AND
CONVERSATIONS TO BE HAD TO
ENSURE WE HAVE RESOURCES TO
SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS.
>> YOUR OPPONENT CLAIMS 325
JUDGES ACROSS THE STATE.
YOU HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE
STATES AND THE CONSERVATIVE
MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
WHICH OF THOSE SHOULD BE MORE
RELEVANT WHEN IT COMES TO VOTERS
DECIDING WHAT ENDORSEMENTS
MATTER?
>> THE JUDGES THAT REVIEW OUR
WORK ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
I HAVE FIVE JUSTICES SUPPORTING
ME.
MY OPPONENT HAS NONE.
I THINK THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT
THOSE WHO ARE PAYING ATTENTION
TO THE WORK, WHAT WE'RE DOING,
AND REVIEWING IT CAREFULLY.
AND SO YEAH.
I'M PROUD OF THE ENDORSEMENTS I
HAVE.
ALSO THE SUPPORT OF JUDGES,
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.
BUT I DO THINK LAW ENFORCEMENT
IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS
RACE AND PROUD TO HAVE SUPPORT
ALL OVER THE STATE, NOT JUST
FROM ELECTED LEADERS, BUT FROM
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF
CITIZENS WORKING HARD ON OUR
CAMPAIGN.
>> BOTH OF YOU SAY YOU'LL BE
INDEPENDENT, BUT SHE HAS FAMILY
EX CANFAMILY-- CONNECTIONS TO A LOT OF
CONCLUDES.
GOVERNOR WALKER APPOINTED YOU.
WHY SHOULD VOTERS DISMISS THOSE
AND BELIEVE IN INDEPENDENT?
>> PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TOP LAWYER
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT WHEN HE TAPPED HER TO BE
ON THE SUPREME COURT.
THERE'S NOTHING IMPLICITLY OR
OTHERWISE WRONG WITH PEOPLE
HAVING BACKGROUNDS IN GOVERNMENT
SERVICE, AS I HAVE.
I HAVE NOT BEEN ELECTED TO
POLITICAL OFFICE.
I HAVE NOT BEEN A PROLIFIC
POLITICAL GIVER.
I WAS PRIVILEGED TO SERVE IN A
SYG CAN'T ROLE.
-- SIGNIFICANT ROLE.
THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE EXPERIENCE I
HAVE LITIGATING BIG CASES, BEING
PART OF THESE BIG PICTURE
QUESTIONS.
THE REAL QUESTION IS JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHY.
DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR PARTISAN
POLITICS SHOULD BE A PART OF
YOUR JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING.
AND MY ANSWER TO THAT IS NO, IT
SHOULDN'T BE.
>> TALKING ABOUT JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHY, AS A LAW STUDENT IN
2005 YOU ARGUED, QUOTE, THE IDEA
THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS
DIFFERENT THAN BESTIALITY AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER IS
UNJUSTIFIABLE.
DO YOU STILL STAND BY THAT?
>> THIS RACE ISN'T ABOUT BLOG
POSTS FROM WHEN I WAS A LAW
STUDENT.
THIS IS ABOUT THE JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHY THAT OUGHT TO GOVERN
OUR COURTS.
WITH REGARD TO THIS QUOTE, THIS
HAS BEEN MISREPORTED.
I WAS TRACKING EXACTLY THE SAME
ARGUMENT THAT JUSTICE SCALIA
MADE IN A CASE.
THREE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
WERE MAKING AN ARGUMENT ON A
PARTICULAR CASE.
I NEVER MADE A MORAL ARGUMENT,
POLITICAL OR POLICY ARGUMENT.
I SAID I EXPLICITLY WASN'T.
THERE'S A LOT OF UNDUE ATTENTION
BEING PAID TO A LEGAL ARGUMENT
AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN COMMITTED
TO UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION,
THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, BEING
FAITHFUL TO IT, NO MATTER WHAT
ANYONE'S PERSONAL POLICY VIEWS
MIGHT BE.
>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A LEGAL
ARGUMENT, THOUGH, SHOULD VOTERS
BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT AS
THAT'S PART OF YOUR LEGAL
THOUGHT PROCESS AND THAT'S HOW
YOU BELIEVE OR WOULD ACT AS A
JURIST ON THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT?
>> WELL, I THINK I HAVE A TRACK
RECORD THAT PEOPLE CAN PAY
ATTENTION TO.
AGAIN, I WOULD REMIND VOTERS
THESE WERE POSTS BEFORE I WAS A
LAWYER.
I WASN'T EVEN A BAR ATTORNEY AT
THAT POINT.
SO I DON'T THINK THOSE THINGS
ARE AS RELEVANT TO THIS RACE AND
WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AS A LAW
CLERK FOR THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT, AS SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN IN
ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
POSITIONS YOU CAN BE IN IN
GIVING LEGAL OPINIONS.
AND I HAVE A TRACK RECORD.
I HAVE NEVER, EVER DECIDED A
CASE AS A JUDGE WHERE I HAVE LET
MY PERSONAL VIEWS AFFECT THE WAY
I DECIDE THE CASE.
I'VE ALWAYS FOLLOWED THE LAW.
>> SOMETHING THAT IS MORE RECENT
THAT'S ALSO BEEN IN THE NEWS IS
IN 2016 YOU AND YOUR WIFE HELPED
FOUND A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL THAT
ALLOWS FOR THE FIRING OF
TEACHERS IF THEY ARE HOMOSEXUAL.
THAT CAUSED THE WISCONSIN
REALTOR AS ASSOCIATION TO
WITHDRAW THEIR ENDORSEMENT.
WHAT SHOULD VOTERS MAKE OF THAT,
SINCE THAT WAS MUCH MORE RECENT?
>> SURE.
WE HAVE HAD AN UNPRECEDENTED
ATTACK ON PEOPLE OF FAITH AND I
THINK THAT'S REPRESENTATIVE OF
THAT.
THERE ARE PEOPLE AND PARENTS AND
STUDENTS AROUND THE STATE WHO GO
TO THEIR LOCAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL,
LUTHERAN SCHOOL, JEWISH SCHOOL,
MUSLIM SCHOOL, MORMON SCHOOL,
WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
AND THERE'S NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT
MANY OF THE TEACHINGS THAT WE'VE
HAD THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH
TEACHING FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
AND SO THAT -- WE HAVE A RIGHT
TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN OUR
COUNTRY.
THERE'S -- NO ONE'S FORCING
ANYBODY ON ANYTHING.
WHEN MY WIFE AND I LIVE OUT OUR
FAITH, WE LIVE OUT OUR FAITH BY
BEING A PART OF A SCHOOL FOR OUR
KIDS.
NOBODY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM
PUBLIC LIFE BECAUSE THEY
VOLUNTEER AT THE KNIGHTS OF
COLUMBUS OR RELIGIOUS SCHOOL.
I THINK THOSE ATTACKS HAVE BEEN
SHAMEFUL AND THEY'RE WRONG.
IT'S OKAY FOR PEOPLE TO DISAGREE
ABOUT EVEN IMPORTANT THINGS AND
LIVE SHARED LIFE TOGETHER IN
PUBLIC.
I TREAT EVERYBODY WHO COMES
BEFORE ME WITH RESPECT AND WITH
INTEGRITY AND DECENCY.
THAT'S BEEN MY TRACK RECORD AND
THAT'S WHO I AM.
A LOT OF THE NAME-CALLING THAT
I'VE BEEN RECEIVING ON THE BASIS
OF SOME OF THESE REPORTS HAS
BEEN UNFORTUNATE.
AGAIN, I THINK MOTIVATED BY
REALLY TROUBLESOME DEVELOPMENTS
IN ATTACKING PEOPLE OF FAITH.
>> IF THAT IS SO IMPORTANT TO
WHO YOU YOU ARE THAT YOU HELPED
FOUND A SCHOOL, WHY SHOULD
VOTERS NOT CONSIDER THAT TO BE
INSTRUMENTAL IN YOUR VIEWPOINTS
OF THE LAW AS WELL?
>> WELL, BECAUSE I'M NOT RUNNING
TO ON IMPOSE MY MORAL RELIGIOUS
VIEWS, AT ALL.
MY WHOLE CAMPAIGN IS PREMISED ON
THE IDEA THAT MY JOB AS A JUDGE
IS WHAT THE LAW IS AND NOT WHAT
I THINK IT SHOULD BE.
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH
ME AT ALL.
IN FACT, I WILL DEFEND PEOPLE'S
RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH WHATEVER
PERSONAL VIEWS I MAY HAVE.
I WANT TO REITERATE.
I'M NOT RUNNING ON MY PERSONAL
VIEWS.
I NEVER HAVE.
IT'S MY OPPONENT AND HER SPECIAL
INTEREST ALLIES WHO ARE
ATTACKING ME FOR MY FAITH.