Here & Now

Former Justice Weighs In on Supreme Court Election

Frederica Freyberg:
For analysis on the race and the results, we turn to former State Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske who joins us from Milwaukee. Justice, thanks very much for doing so.

Janine Geske:
You’re welcome, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what is your reaction to the Supreme Court election results?

Janine Geske:
I like many people was surprised at the outcome. I anticipated it would be close, but I was surprised that Judge Hagedorn came out the victor.

Frederica Freyberg:
Why were you surprised?

Janine Geske:
Well, I think Judge Neubauer had to have really been campaigning very early, had a very traditional campaign, had most of the judges supporting her, had been out there and I think the feeling was that, you know, she was representing herself as the fair and impartial judge. And Judge Hagedorn, of course, had these writings from when he was at Northwestern Law School that were perceived, at least in the Milwaukee area as a negative and I think there was a sense that she would prevail. And most of his ads came at the end, so he didn’t have the advertising she had until the last week or so, so it was a surprise.

Frederica Freyberg:
Did this election in your mind once and for all kind of cast off the cloak of non-partisan judicial elections?

Janine Geske:
Well, I’m afraid it does. And I’m very sad about that. Although both candidates talked being the fair and impartial judge and the other not being. Clearly they were identified with political parties and advocacy groups and a sense that one would vote one way and one would vote the other, and I think we’re losing that sense of we want judges who are clearly not attached to either side and are fair and impartial.

Frederica Freyberg:
So how fair or unfair did you think reporting on Brian Hagedorn’s prior writings on homosexuality and involvement in a school that banned same-sex relationships was?

Janine Geske:
I thought — I thought that was fair reporting. I thought it was fair game. Particularly because not only did he write about his religious views, which, you know, is totally appropriate, but he had gone further in his writings to talk about how those religious views would have influenced him on particular cases. And so that clearly was fair game, and it became a hot button, I think, on both sides in terms of the election, but I thought it was appropriate, just as it was appropriate to talk about the ties that Judge Neubauer had with the Democratic Party.

Frederica Freyberg:
Did you feel as though then both candidates would kind of stand to come in with an agenda?

Janine Geske:
Well, no. You know, I worried about Judge Hagedorn because he did write not only about his religious views, and many of us on the bench have religious views, but how that would impact the decision of cases. And although he frequently repeated how he would divorce himself from those feelings, I don’t think he really explained how he would do that. I always give the example, if we had had the death penalty and I would have been on the court, I would have had to recuse myself off of death penalty cases. I’m so opposed to the death penalty that I never could have affirmed a death penalty case. And I’m the not sure he ever explained how he feels he could rule against a position that is inconsistent or consistent with his religious beliefs. And I think that became a plus and a minus, depending whether you supported him or not.

Frederica Freyberg:
Lisa Neubauer, as you suggested, had the endorsement of hundreds of judges across Wisconsin. What does that say?

Janine Geske:
I think that people saw her as very judicial, someone who has that history of being impartial, not being tied to any hot button political issues despite the contacts in her family. And that she would be the traditional judge just calling them like she saw them. I think most judges want to be, and I think that people were concerned, particularly with the writings of Judge Hagedorn, whether he could do that.

Frederica Freyberg:
On this kind of news of the day, I have this question, why would you think that liberal groups litigating over the lame duck legislation in Wisconsin want to take their case directly to the State Supreme Court at this moment?

Janine Geske:
Well, I think they think that — well, first of all, they think they already have a majority of the kinds of judges that will decide, oh – the liberal groups – you’re asking me why they would want to take it up.

Frederica Freyberg:
Right.

Janine Geske:
Before Judge Hagedorn arrives, I think that, you know, that Justice Abrahamson, although she’s still participating, she’s obviously challenged with her health, and the other judges, I think that they think that they’re going to be able to prevail with them. But if not with Judge Hagedorn, they’re going to be in, you know — have a higher burden, I think, in terms of convincing them, having been the governor’s legal counsel.

Frederica Freyberg:
Right. Exactly. Janine Geske, former State Supreme Court Justice, thanks very much.

Janine Geske:
You’re welcome.