D DENZINE.

>> Frederica: FINALLY WE HAVE A FOURTH IN OUR SERIES OF INTRODUCE WITH THE CANDIDATES FOR A SEAT IN THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.

THE PRIMARY IS FEBRUARY 21 WITH THE TOP VOTE GETTERS ADVANCING TO THE GENERAL ELECTION IN APRIL.

EARLIER THIS WEEK ZAC SCHULTZ SAT DOWN WITH JENNIFER DOROW A WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE.

>> CAN YOU BREAK DOWN YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY.

>> I'M A JUDICIAL CONSERVATIVE AND UPHOLDING THE LAW GIVING DEFERENCE TO OUR LEGISLATIVE STATUTES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE POLICY IS MADE AND NEVER OF LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH.

>> HOW DO YOU DEFINE LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DISAGREEMENT WHEN A COURT MAKES A RULING WHETHER THEY'RE REARRANGING A LAW TO FIT A NEED OR OPINION VERSUS THIS IS ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON?

>> WHEN A JUDGE OR JUSTICE INSERTS THEIR OWN POLITICAL AGENDA, POLICY, VIEWS OR PERSONAL OPINIONS ON WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE, THAT'S MY DEFINITION OF LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH.

AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE THE IT'S THE ROLE OF A JUDGE TO APPLY THE LAW AS WRITTEN TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE COME BEFORE US TO NEVER PREJUDGE THOSE CASES TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AND IN OUR GOVERNMENT WE HAVE A SYSTEM SET UP, A CLEAR SEPARATION OF POWERS, OUR LEGISLATIVE FIGURES, OUR ASSEMBLY MEN AND SENATORS, THEY MAKE THE LAW.

THAT'S WHERE THE POLICY OF THE IS SET.

AND THEN JUDGE INTERPRET THAT WHEN CALLED UPON TO DO THAT.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT JUDGES ACT MORE LIKE UMPIRES.

WE DON'T MAKE THE LAW, WE JUST DECIDE THE LAW AND IF YOU THINK OF THE ANALOGY TO BASEBALL JUST CALLING THE BALLS AND STRIKES, NOT THE PITCHER, NOT THE CATCHER, BUT JUST CALLING THE BALLS AND STRIKES AND THAT'S WHAT A JUDGE DOES AND A JUSTICE SHOULD DO IS CALL THE LEGAL BALLS AND STRIKES THAT COME BEFORE HIM OR HER.

>> SO YOU SAID THE POLITICS SHOULD ENTER INTO THE DECISION BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A POLITICAL RACE AND THERE ARE A LOT OF POLITICAL FACTORS WEIGHING IN TO ALL THE CANDIDATES AND CONSTITUENTS ARE THINKING WHO THEY WANT TO VOTE FOR, SOME ARE THINKING THROUGH A POLITICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE.

HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT WHEN YOU WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT YOU WILL BE IMPARTIAL ON THE BENCH AND PEOPLE ALSO WANT A SENSE OF YOUR POLITICS?

>> IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HONOR THAT THIS IS A NON-PARTISAN RACE AND THAT MY POLITICAL VIEWS OR MY POLICY PREFERENCES ARE NOT GOING TO IMPACT WHAT I DO ON THE BENCH.

IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE LIBERAL CANDIDATES AND I KNOW WE GIVE THEM LABELS, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE BUT IT'S A SIMPLE WAY FOR THE PUBLIC TO IDENTIFY OUR APPROACH AND WHAT THE LAW IS AND HAVE YOU TWO CANDIDATES OPENLY GIVING US THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA, CAMPAIGNING ON A POLITICAL AGENDA AND FORECASTING HOW THEY WOULD VOTE ON MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES.

THEY'RE TELLING THE FUTURE LITIGANTS, THEIR MIND IS MADE UP.

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS OR THE LAW.

VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I'LL DO X, Y OR Z.

THAT IS NOT THE METHODOLOGY I WILL FOLLOW AND THAT I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING FOR 11 YEARS ON THE BENCH.

IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT EVERY JUDGE AND JUSTICE STAY IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL LANE AND THAT'S WHAT I'LL DO.

>> WHAT SHOULD VOTERS THEN THINK OF YOUR BACKGROUND, WHO WITH YOU WERE APPOINTED BY AND WHO IS ENDORSING YOU AND WHERE THE OUTSIDE MONEY THAT SUPPORTS YOU COMES FROM AND FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEIR CONNECTIONS TO POLITICAL PEOPLE AND THE LIBERALS ARE SAYING WE'RE BEING UP FRONT AND HONEST AND IT'S THE CONSERVATIVES TRYING TO HIDE WHERE THE REAL INFLUENCE MAY BE.

>> THE CANDIDATES ON THE LEFT ARE TELLING YOU ABOUT A POLITICAL AGENDA WHEN THIS IS NOT A RACE FOR A LEGISLATIVE OR GUBERNATORIAL POSITION.

THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME AS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW AND BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO NOT TALK ABOUT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS IS TO SHOW THE PUBLIC, SHOW THE LITIGANTS AND REMIND ME THAT I NEED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.

I COVER UP THOSE PERSONAL PREFERENCES SO THAT I MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE LAW.

WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE LAW, YOU HAVE PREDICTABILITY, NO LIABILITY AND STABILITY.

>> I WANT TO LOOK BACK AT A FEW CASES THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT ARE STILL PRETTY IMPORTANT.

LEGISLATURE VERSUS PAUL WAS ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S ABILITY TO PUT RESTRICTIONS DURING COVID.

HOW DO YOU THINK THAT CASE WAS HANDLED?

HOW WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED IF YOU WERE ON THE BENCH AT THE TIME?

>> THE MAJORITY OPINION IN THAT CASE WAS WRITTEN BY JUSTICE ROGUAAAN AND THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED AND I FOUND MYSELF LOOKING AT THEIR ANALYSIS AND SAYING THEY GOT IT RIGHT.

OF COURSE, EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT AND I DON'T WANT TO PRE JUDGE CASES THAT MAY COME BEFORE THE COURT AGAIN OR IN THE FUTURE THAT LOOK AT ISSUES OF AUTHORITY FOR A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHETHER DIRECTLY OR DELEGATION.

>> AND ABORTION'S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT IS LIKELY TO COME BACK IN THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.

I WANT TO ASK HOW YOU MIGHT RULE ON THAT AND ON THE DOBBS DECISION DO YOU THINK THAT WAS DECIDED FAIRLY AND THE APPROPRIATE METHOD TO REVIEW OR NOW WISCONSIN LAW THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT ON ITS OWN OUTSIDE OF DOBBS?

>> AS THE SUPREME COURT CASE FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IT OBVIOUSLY IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND I'M DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW THAT.

WHAT THAT CASE DID WAS PUT THE DECISION OF REGULATING ABORTION IN THE HAND OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

THAT'S WHERE THAT DECISION SHOULD BE MADE AND OF COURSE THERE IS A CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE, THAT'S THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT WILL BE WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE LAW IN WISCONSIN.

I WON'T COMMENT ANY FURTHER BECAUSE IT'S LIKELY TO MAKE ITS WAY UP TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.

BUT AGAIN, AS A SITTING JUDGE AND AS A HOPEFUL TO BE ON THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT I HAVE TO GIVE HONOR TO THE DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

>> IS THERE A DANGER IN VOTERS APPROACHING THIS ELECTION LOOKING THROUGH ONLY THE PRISM OF ONE OR TWO HOT-BUTTON POLITICAL ISSUES AND SAYING I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT MOST CLOSELY FOLLOWS MY VIEWS THERE OPPOSED TO BROADLY LOOKING AT WHAT I WANT IN A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

>> I THINK THE DANGER IS THERE'S CANDIDATES OPENLY CAMPAIGNING ON POLITICAL AND CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS AND VOTERS SHOULD LOOK AT HOW ARE THE JUSTICES GOING TO DECIDE THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE THE COURT?

NOT JUST ON A COUPLE OF TOPICS BUT ON ALL TOPICS.

THAT'S NOT BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.

WE TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND WISCONSIN AND FAITHLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF OUR OFFICE TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.

THAT'S WHAT JUSTICES AND JUDGES SHOULD DO THAT HONORS THE ROLE OF THE COURTS.

IT HONORS THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE.

AND HONORS THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE AS WELL BECAUSE THE PEOPLE SPEAK THROUGH OUR LEGISLATORS AND THAT'S WHERE POLICY IS MADE.

I WILL NEVER INSERT MY POLICY PREFERENCES INTO THE DECISIONS THAT I MAKE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT VOTERS WILL BE LOOKING AT SO THAT THEY KNOW WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS THAT COMES BEFORE THE COURT THEY CAN TRUST THE DECISIONS MADE.

>> FINALLY, THIS IS GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION BOTH WISCONSIN AND NATIONALLY, HOW MUCH WILL THAT AFFECT THE RACE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR RACE TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT?

>> IT'S A POSITION ON THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.

IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.

I CAN SEE THAT AS I GO AROUND THE STATE CAMPAIGNING AND THERE ARE A LOT OF EYES LOOKING AT THIS RACE AS WELL, I THINK FOR THE WRONG REASONS.

I THINK THERE'S A PUSH FROM THE LEFT TO PUSH THIS POLITICAL AGENDA SO THAT NOT ONLY WISCONSIN CAN BE TRANSFORMED AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY, NOT THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BUT A VOTER 4-3 ON THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT SO THAT OTHER POLITICAL AGENDAS CAN BE MET AS WELL.

THAT'S WRONG.

IT HAS NO PLACE IN THE COURTS AND I DO BELIEVE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN SEE THAT AND WANT A COURT THAT'S FAIR AND IMPARTIAL INSTEAD OF ONE DRIVEN BY A POLITICAL AGENDA.

>> Frederica: YOU CAN SEE ALL THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE CANDIDATES ON OUR NEWS PAGE.

FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT