Here & Now

Bradley Stresses Impartial Judicial Philosophy

INCUMBENT JUSTICE REBECCA BRADLEY WAS APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR WALKER TO THE HIGH COURT LAST OCTOBER UPON THE DEATH OF JUSTICE PATRICK CROOKS. JUSTICE BRADLEY PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON THE WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS AND AS A MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. JUSTICE BRADLEY JOINS US NOW. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

REBECCA BRADLEY:

WONDERFUL TO BE HERE. THANK YOU.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WELL, YOU ANNOUNCED THAT YOU WERE RUNNING FOR THE HIGH COURT BEFORE YOUR APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR. WHY DO YOU WANT VOTERS TO KEEP YOU ON?

REBECCA BRADLEY:

I WANT VOTERS TO KEEP ME ON BECAUSE I’M REALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE WORK THAT I’M DOING. I REALLY FEEL THAT I WAS CALLED TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY, AND IT’S MY HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN. I DECIDED TO BECOME A JUDGE AND I DECIDED TO RUN FOR STATE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE JUDGES AND JUSTICES WHO UNDERSTAND OUR DUTY TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS AND NOT WHAT WE MAY WISH IT TO BE. AND I REALLY BELIEVE THAT I BRING EXCELLENT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS TO THE SUPREME COURT, HAVING SERVED AS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE AND A COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE AFTER PRACTICING LAW FOR OVER 16 YEARS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

NOW, OUR VIEWERS KNOW THAT SCOTT WALKER APPOINTED YOU TO THE CIRCUIT COURT IN 2012, TO THE APPEALS COURT JUST IN MAY AND TO THE HIGH COURT IN OCTOBER. YOUR JUDICIAL CAREER IS CLEARLY LINKED TO HIM. HOW DO YOU THINK THAT HELPS OR HURTS YOU?

REBECCA BRADLEY:

WELL, I THINK MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOVERNOR IS DOING HIS DUTY AND OBLIGATION, WHICH IS TO APPOINT JUDGES AND JUSTICES WHEN THE INCUMBENT EITHER, SADLY, PASSES AWAY OR DECIDES TO RETIRE. I DON’T FIND THAT MOST VOTERS REALLY CARE ABOUT WHO APPOINTED ME. THEY’RE VERY MUCH FOCUSED ON THE CREDENTIALS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF EACH OF THE CANDIDATES AND WHAT I THINK IS REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THESE RACES, WHICH IS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

AND DESCRIBE AGAIN — I KNOW YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR DUTY IS TO UPHOLD THE LAW. SO DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY.

REBECCA BRADLEY:

SURE. MY JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS THAT THE JOB OF A JUDGE IS TO LOOK AT THE TEXT OF THE LAW AND APPLY THAT LAW, SETTING ASIDE ANY PERSONAL POLICY PREFERENCES OR POLITICAL INCLINATIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE, BECAUSE EVERYBODY DOES HAVE THOSE. BUT THE JOB OF A JUDGE IS TO REALLY FOCUS ON THE LAW THAT WE NEED TO APPLY. AND I HAVE A RECORD OF DOING THIS. WHEN I SERVED IN CHILDREN’S COURT IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY, THOSE WERE REALLY KIND OF EMOTIONAL CASES AND I WOULD GET TO KNOW THE FAMILIES WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME IN TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES. AND AS A HUMAN BEING AND AS A WOMAN, I WOULD DEVELOP MY OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT THE PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN WHO WERE APPEARING IN FRONT OF ME. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT I WOULDN’T LET MY PERSONAL FEELINGS INTERFERE WITH MY JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING, I WOULD LOOK AT THE LAW THAT I WAS CALLED UPON TO APPLY, PLUG THE FACTS INTO THAT LAW, AND I FOUND MY DECISIONS WRITING THEMSELVES. AND THAT REMOVED ANY OF MY PERSONAL FEELINGS FROM ANY OF MY JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

IN KEEPING WITH THIS YOU SAY THAT IT IS QUOTE ESSENTIAL TO OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE TO HAVE INDEPENDENT JUSTICES WHO WILL APPLY THE LAW IMPARTIALLY, FREE OF POLITICAL AGENDA. IS THERE AN EXAMPLE AS JUDGE, YOU JUST DESCRIBED SOME EXAMPLES WHERE YOU WERE WORKING WITH YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS, BUT IS THERE AN EXAMPLE OF AN IMPARTIAL DECISION ON YOUR PART THAT WENT AGAINST YOUR POLITICS?

REBECCA BRADLEY:

I CAN’T THINK OF A DECISION LIKE THAT, BUT I DO REMEMBER WHEN I WAS SERVING IN CHILDREN’S COURT HAVING TO MAKE DECISIONS WHERE I DIDN’T NECESSARILY LIKE THE OUTCOME, BUT IT’S NOT MY JOB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OUTCOME I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE IN THE CASE. IT’S MY DUTY TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS TO YOUR CHALLENGERS?

REBECCA BRADLEY:

I THINK I BRING A UNIQUE SET OF QUALIFICATIONS TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT. I AM THE FIRST SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IN WISCONSIN HISTORY TO HAVE SERVED AS BOTH A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE AND A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND I THINK THAT’S REALLY VALUABLE EXPERIENCE TO HAVE SERVED AT EACH LEVEL OF THE COURT SYSTEM. AND BEFORE THAT AS I MENTIONED I PRACTICED LAW FOR OVER 16 YEARS AS A CIVIL LITIGATOR, A BUSINESS TRANSACTIONAL ATTORNEY, AN AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION ARBITRATOR, AND I ALSO SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT OF LEGAL OPERATIONS FOR A SOFTWARE COMPANY. SO I HAVE A UNIQUE SET OF EXPERIENCES THAT I THINK MAKE ME UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO CONTINUE SERVING THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

I KNOW THAT JOE DONALD TOLD US THAT HE THOUGHT THAT HIS WORK AS A CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE WAS VERY VALUABLE AND THAT SET HIM APART FROM HIS CHALLENGERS. WHAT ABOUT THAT?

REBECCA BRADLEY:

WELL, I ALSO HAVE CRIMINAL COURT EXPERIENCE. I HANDLED JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CASES AS A CHILDREN’S COURT JUDGE. AND TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE VOLUME OF CASES, IT WAS 700 TO 800 CASES ANNUALLY. AND AS A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS IN MILWAUKEE, MORE THAN HALF OF OUR CASELOAD CAME FROM THE CRIMINAL COURTS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

AS A LAWYER, YOU OPPOSE THE SO-CALLED CLEAN CAMPAIGN PLEDGE THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION WAS URGING SUPREME COURT CANDIDATES TO SIGN ONTO. THE PLEDGE ASKED CANDIDATES TO QUTOE PUBLICLY DISAVOW ADS THAT IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES. WHY DID YOU OPPOSE THAT PLEDGE?

REBECCA BRADLEY:

I OPPOSE THE CREATION OF THE INTEGRITY COMMITTEE BY THE STATE BAR BECAUSE BEYOND THAT PLEDGE THAT COMMITTEE ALSO CALLED UPON JUDGES AND JUDICIAL CANDIDATES TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT OTHER INDIVIDUALS OR THIRD PARTIES WERE SAYING IN RACES AND TO BASICALLY MONITOR THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. AND IF THAT COMMITTEE THOUGHT THAT SOMETHING A CANDIDATE WAS DOING WAS UNFAIR OR A THIRD PARTY OR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WAS SAYING WAS UNFAIR, IN THEIR OPINION, THEN THEY WOULD CALL UPON THE CANDIDATES TO DISAVOW THOSE ADS. AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO LOOK AT ADVERTISING AND TO LOOK AT HOW THE CANDIDATES CONDUCT THEMSELVES DURING RACES AND MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS FOR THEMSELVES. AND THE THIRD PARTIES AND THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE RACES HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DO SO.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WE GOT SOME VIEWER MAIL ASKING KIND OF A TOUGH QUESTION ABOUT AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST THAT A LIBERAL GROUP MADE SEEKING YOUR OFFICIAL CALENDARS. AND THIS VIEWER ASKED WHY THE REQUESTERS WERE BILLED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR 29 MONTHS OF BLANK CALENDAR PAGES. WE JUST WANTED TO LET YOU GIVE YOUR RESPONSE.

REBECCA BRADLEY:

I THINK THAT’S ACTUALLY FACTUALLY INACCURATE. IT’S THE STATE COURT DIRECTOR’S OFFICE THAT RESPONDS TO OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICES. SO THE RESPONSE CAME FROM THEM. AND IT WAS THE STATE COURTS OFFICE DIRECTOR’S PREROGATIVE TO CHARGE FOR THE TIME THAT STATE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO COMMIT TO RESPOND TO THOSE REQUESTS, BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DO A SEARCH OF OUR EMAIL, OUR CALENDARS, AND PRODUCE THE RECORDS THAT EXIST PURSUANT TO THAT REQUEST.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

ALL RIGHT. WE NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE. JUSTICE BRADLEY, THANKS VERY MUCH.

REBECCA BRADLEY:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.