Here & Now

Janine Geske Discusses State Supreme Court Race

Zac Schultz: Next Friday night “Here & Now” will be preempted so that we may bring you a debate between the candidates running for State Supreme Court. Incumbent Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and challenger, Rock County Circuit Court Judge James Daley will square-off in a special one-hour broadcast carried live on Wisconsin Public Television and Wisconsin Public Radio. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is also a partner in this production. The race is being overshadowed by the State budget and right-to-work legislation. It makes paying attention to next week’s debate all the more important. What are the key issues in the race? What exactly is the job description? We’re going to ask someone that knows a lot about the job. Former State Supreme Court Janine Geske joins us from Milwaukee. Thank you for being here.

Janine Geske: You’re welcome.

Zac Schultz: What should voters be listening for in this debate?

Janine Geske: Well, I think, you know, when we look at a candidate for the Supreme Court, you want a person who is thoughtful, who’s fair, who will be willing to give each party a fair shake and look at the merits of the case and the law in the context of that case. You want to look for someone with a good temperament that has good experience and that you will have confidence in when they sit on that bench and reach those very important decisions along with his or her colleagues.

Zac Schultz: All too often in Supreme Court races we hear about being tough on crime or how many endorsements you have from the sheriffs or district attorneys, but the Supreme Court doesn’t preside over criminal trials, so why does any of that matter?

Janine Geske: I think, you know, people like to hear that. They like to have a sense that a court is going to protect them against crime and deal with crime. But first of all, there are not that many cases that get up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court that even involve criminal issues, and they don’t involve sentencing and they don’t find finding someone guilty or not. They’re a determination whether the courts below have correctly applied the law. There is that sense that people think if sheriffs and law enforcement and people that work in that field, in the criminal law field, are backing a candidate that that’s the kind of Judge they want. And I really hope that people step back a minute and think if you had a dispute in front of an appellate court, what kind of Judge would you want and would you want somebody who clearly comes in with an open mind and is willing to really listen to your position, listen to the law and do an analysis in light of previous cases.

Zac Schultz: The Supreme Court races are supposed to be nonpartisan, but when you look at who is managing the campaigns and who is funding the campaigns, isn’t it really just Republicans versus Democrats? Why can’t we just be honest about the involvement of partisan politics?

Janine Geske: Well, historically in Wisconsin we’ve had a very strong nonpartisan Judiciary. And I’m a strong believer in that because the idea is that you can’t — if you have just Republicans and Democrats up there voting the agendas of those parties, then you basically have another Legislature. The purpose of the court is to take a look at the other branches of government and how they’ve performed and assess whether it’s Constitutional under previous law and under the Constitution. You know, and it’s changed a lot. When I ran many, many years ago,

Zac Schultz: And unfortunately the races have become more partisan, both partisan and interest-based.

[Audio difficulties]

Janine Geske: You know, because of the money that is coming into these races and the independent expenditures, I think there’s a lot more focus on, you know, are you conservative or are you liberal, which are terms that are difficult to being a Justice.

Zac Schultz: ‘Activist Judge, legislating from the bench, is that code for I don’t like the way the court ruled on this issue?

Janine Geske: Well, I think they are code for I don’t like the way the Judge ruled on the issue. And I’ll give you an example of that. And I’ll take the Republicans for an example. So the Republicans don’t want a Justice that is going to find anything unconstitutional that the Republican Legislature and the Governor does. On the other hand, at the U.S. Supreme court there’s been — you know, there really has been hope and sometimes success at the U.S. Supreme court undoing Acts of Congress and the President. And so things like the Voting Act that was passed by Congress. In fact, the Supreme Court, the majority, including a member of the conservatives, found that it was unconstitutional. So a little bit it’s — you know, if you’re not deciding the way I like it, you’re an activist Judge. And ultimately that’s not the analysis. The analysis is are you fairly looking at it under the Constitutional law and following precedent in how you’re analyzing the issue.

Zac Schultz: And you served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court with Justice Bradley when she first came in. Do you ever think about still being on that court?

Janine Geske: Well, I think about it. I made the right decision when I left because I was really — I was really wanting to do more in the community and work with the poor and spend time doing more where I could get involved on social issues in the community. But I do think about it, and I feel badly for the justices on the court. The court has had a number of huge interpersonal conflicts. Those have boiled over into a place where some people have lost respect for the court. And I think that it’s really important that we try to get that court back on track, not internally as much as people’s faith in that court, that in fact they can trust when they appear at that court that they’re going to get a fair shake.

Zac Schultz: All right, Justice. Thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it.

Janine Geske: You’re welcome.