Zac Schultz:
We turn now to the upcoming Supreme Court election. On April 2nd, voters will choose between two appeals court judges to replace the retiring Justice Shirley Abrahamson. We interviewed Lisa Neubauer two weeks ago and you can find that interview on our website. Tonight we’ll chat with Brian Hagedorn, who serves on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Hagedorn clerked under former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman and served as chief legal counsel to Governor Scott Walker before Walker appointed him to the Court of Appeals and he won re-election to that court in 2017. Judge Hagedorn, thanks for your time today.

Brian Hagedorn:
Great to be with you.

Zac Schultz:
First off, why are you running for the Supreme Court?

Brian Hagedorn:
Im running for the Supreme Court because I believe we need a justice who’s going to defend the rule of law, uphold the constitution and protect the public. By defending the rule of the law, I mean that the job of a judge is to say what the law is and not what the judge thinks the law should be. We should get partisan politics out of the court. It doesn’t matter which political party writes the laws. Same thing with upholding the constitution. You uphold the words as written, protecting our rights, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms. Those are actually written in our document. And finally, protecting the public. We do have a drug crisis. It’s hitting our state. The opioid crisis as well as the meth crisis that’s really all over the state. Talking to sheriffs, law enforcement, proud to have the support of 44 sheriffs across the state of Wisconsin, far more than my opponent. And this is a pressing issue that we need to tackle.

Zac Schultz:
Thats interesting that you bring that up. I was going to ask how do heroin and meth play into the Supreme Court. What could you do as a justice?

Brian Hagedorn:
Right, well, this is something that’s a little personal to me as well. I’ve been married for 17 years. I have five children. My youngest little girl, her name is Lilly. She’s five years old. And she was born addicted to drugs. We adopted her. We were there in the hospital with her. And she was addicted to opiates and we’re caring for her while she was there in the hospital. The thing is that story is repeated all across the state. So part of what you do on the court is you’re listening to folks everywhere and being a part of that conversation. I mean unquestionably when Im talking to judges, prosecutors and law enforcement, this is one of the top things on their minds. So there’s pilot projects that can and are being done, drug treatment courts. There’s funding issues and conversations to be had to and making sure that we have adequate resources devoted to actually solving those problems.

Zac Schultz:
Now you mentioned your endorsements, your opponent claims 325 judges across the state. You have the majority of the sheriffs and the conservative members of the Supreme Court. Which of those should be more relevant when it comes to voters deciding what endorsements matter?

Brian Hagedorn:
Sure, well the judges that actually review our work are the members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I have five justices supporting me. My opponent has none. I think that says a lot about those who are paying attention to the work, what we’re doing, and reviewing it carefully. And so yeah. I’m proud of the endorsements I have. Also the support of judges, district attorneys. But I do think law enforcement is an important part of this race and proud to have support all over the state, not just from elected leaders, but from citizens. Thousands and thousands who are already working hard on our campaign.

Zac Schultz:
Now both you and your opponent say that you’ll be independent as jurists but she has family connections to a lot of elected Democrats. And you have obviously served under Governor Scott Walker. He appointed you to the court. What should voters think about those connections or why should they dismiss those and believe in independence?

Brian Hagedorn:
Sure. Well, you know, Elena Kagan was President Obamas top lawyer before the United States Supreme Court when President Obama tapped her to be on the Supreme Court. There’s nothing implicitly or otherwise wrong with people having backgrounds in government service, as I have. I’ve not been elected to political office. I’ve not been a prolific political giver, anything along those lines. I was privileged to serve in a significant role. I think, number one, that highlights the experience. The experience I have litigating big cases, being part of these big picture questions. But the real question is judicial philosophy. The question is do you think that your partisan politics should be a part of your judicial decision-making? And my answer to that is no, it shouldn’t be.

Zac Schultz:
Talking about judicial philosophy, as a law student in 2005 you had a blog in which you argued, “The idea that homosexual behavior is different than bestiality as a constitutional matter is unjustifiable.” Do you still stand by that?

Brian Hagedorn:
Well first of all, this race isn’t about blog posts from when I was a law student. This race is about bigger questions about the judicial philosophy that ought to govern our courts. You know, with regards to that post, this has often been, I think, misreported. But I was tracking a legal argument. Tracking exactly the same argument that Justice Scalia made in a case. Three Supreme Court justices were making an argument, critiquing the logic of a particular case. I never made a moral argument. I was never making a political or policy argument. In fact, I said I explicitly wasn’t. So I think there’s a lot of undue attention being paid to a legal argument and I have always been committed to upholding the constitution, the way it’s written, and being faithful to it, no matter what anyone’s personal policy views might be.

Zac Schultz:
When you talk about a legal argument, though, should voters be able to consider that as ok, that’s part of your legal thought process and that’s how you believe or would act as a jurist on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

Brian Hagedorn:
Well, I think I have a track record that people can pay attention to. Again, I would remind voters these were posts before I was a lawyer. I wasn’t even a bar attorney at that point, when I was writing these things. So I don’t think those things are as relevant to this race and what this is about. I have the experience as a law clerk for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as someone who’s been in one of the most significant positions you can be in in giving high-level legal decision, litigating significant cases before the court. And I have a track record. I have never, ever decided a case, never decided a case as a judge where I have let my personal views affect the way I decide the case. I’ve always followed the law.

Zac Schultz:
Something that is more recent that’s also been in the news is in 2016 you and your wife helped found a Christian school that allows for the firing of teachers if they are homosexual. That revelation caused the Wisconsin Realtors Association to withdraw their endorsement and ask for their money back. What should voters make of that, since that is much more recent than when you were as a law student?

Brian Hagedorn:
Sure. We have had really an unprecedented attack on not just me but on people of faith and I think that’s representative of that. You know there are people and parents and students around the state who go to their local catholic school, their local Lutheran school, their local orthodox Jewish school, the Muslim school, Mormon school, whatever it might be. And there’s nothing unique about many of the teachings that we’ve had that are consistent with teaching for thousands of years. And so that — we have a right to freedom of religion in our country. There’s — no one’s forcing anybody on anything. When my wife and I live out our faith, we live out our faith by being a part of a school for our kids and volunteering in a school for our kids. Nobody should be excluded from public life or public office because they volunteer at the Knights of Columbus or volunteer at their kids local religious school. I think those attacks have been shameful and they’re wrong. It’s okay for people to disagree about even important things and live shared life together in public. I treat everybody who comes before me with respect and with integrity and decency. That’s been my track record and that’s who I am. A lot of the name-calling that Ive been receiving on the basis of some of these reports has been unfortunate. Again, I think motivated by some really troublesome developments in attacking people of faith.

Zac Schultz:
If that is so important to your faith and to who you are as a person that you helped found a school, why should voters not consider that to be instrumental in your viewpoints of the law as well?

Brian Hagedorn:
Well, because Im not running to on impose my moral religious views, at all. My whole campaign is premised on the idea that my job as a judge is to say what the law is and not what I think the law should be. In fact, I am deeply committed to protecting everyone’s religious freedom. People don’t have to agree with me at all. In fact, I will defend people’s right to disagree with whatever personal views I may have. I want to reiterate. I’m not running on my personal views. I never have. It’s my opponent and her special interest allies who are attacking me for my faith and who keep bringing up personal views rather than the law, and that’s what this race is about.

Zac Schultz:
All right. Brian Hagedorn, thanks for clearing that up.

Brian Hagedorn:
Thank you so much.