Frederica Freyberg:

Well, the only statewide election this spring is for Supreme Court. Incumbent Ann Walsh Bradley’s second ten-year term has come to a close and she’s running again. Bradley was first elected to the state Supreme Court in 1995. Before that, she was in private practice until her appointment as judge to the Marathon County circuit court. Bradley received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1976 and a bachelor’s from Webster University in St. Louis. Her opponent is Rock County circuit court judge, James Daley, with whom we are working to schedule an interview for later this month. I sat down with the incumbent this week and started by asking, why should voters re-elect her over her challenger?

Ann Walsh Bradley:

Let me tell you what this election is about. It’s an important election for the future of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I think the people of Wisconsin want and deserve a justice who is firm, who’s fiercely independent, a justice who’s willing to make the tough decisions and not beholden to any outside, out-of-state special interest group, large or small. And for the past 20 years I have been a voice protecting the people of Wisconsin. I really believe when I’m sitting there on the court, I’m standing up for the people of Wisconsin. I believe that. I’ve worked and been a voice for upholding individual rights, for open and accessible government, and for holding government accountable. So I think that’s what this election is about, and that’s what the voters should see as they vote to return me to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, your challenger says that you, interject your personal opinion into court decisions and legislate from the bench. The GOP is out with a statement calling you a liberal activist representing a tired liberal agenda. What’s your reaction to those comments?

Ann Walsh Bradley:

I think of former United States Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. And when she was asked a question about this kind of labeling, I remember she smiled and she said, you know, those who say you legislate from the bench are just really saying they disagree with the bottom line of your opinion. And I think that those kinds of labels– I think she– I think she’s correct. I think she hit the nail on the head, that the bottom line is they disagree with the decision.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what is your so-called judicial philosophy?

Ann Walsh Bradley:

I would characterize my judicial philosophy as one of judicial restraint. In judicial philosophies there’s probably a couple of branches of judicial restraint. One is judicial acquiescence, and I’m known to have a firm belief in judicial acquiescence because I think it’s our job as a court not to acquiesce to anyone, but to stand up for the constitution and stand up for the rights of people. So my judicial restraint is a restraint that is guided by judicial precedent. That’s how I define judicial restraint. You know, we don’t decide cases out of the air. We base our decisions on looking at the words of the constitution, looking at the words of the statute and, very importantly, also being bound by precedent. Now, why is that important? People don’t want decisions to change from court to court depending on who happens to be on the court. Very important in the law is that there be stability in the law and predictability in the law, and those of us who believe in the importance of following precedent, judicial restraint, hold those values sacred.

Frederica Freyberg:

Experts call it, legal fiction that judges are nonpartisan. Would you agree with that?

Ann Walsh Bradley:

No.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why not?

Ann Walsh Bradley:

I believe firmly, and I mean firmly, that partisan politics should stay out of judicial races. I first got on this court in 1995, and I remember it was a very vigorous, five-way primary. In fact, a couple of the justices that are now serving on the court with me were then in that race. They lost. I won. But subsequently they joined me on the court. And I remember the morning after election day looking at the Milwaukee newspaper, and the reporter said this, he said, about me, if she said it once, she said it a thousand times. Keep partisan politics out of the judiciary. I believed that very, very strongly in 1995, and I believe it strongly now. Why? Because partisan politics comes with agendas, and you don’t want judges with agendas. When people come to court, they want a level playing field. When people come to court or their neighbors come to court or their children come to court, they want to make sure that the court is going to give them a fair shake, a level playing field, no judges with no political or ideological agendas.

Frederica Freyberg:

What was regarded as the high court’s dysfunction came into clear focus in the run-up to the Act 10 decision when Justice Prosser put his hands on your neck during an argument over that case. How is your relationship now with Justice Prosser?

Ann Walsh Bradley:

All seven members of the court work together professionally because we know that we have to. We sit next to each other in oral argument. Tomorrow– Rather, in the next couple of days we will be having oral arguments. We sit, we ask questions, we interchange in oral argument. We go back to the conference room. We discuss cases professionally with– and cordially. So I think people would be very proud now of the way that we approach the case. We’ve learned a lot in the last couple of years. We’ve had room for improvement, and I think that we are striving for that.