Bradley, Kloppenburg go head-to-head in Milwaukee (UPDATE)

Listen to this article

There were three things that Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates agreed on at Wednesday’s forum: recusals for justices, handling complaints against justices and the legality of arbitration clauses attached to employment agreements.

There were many more topics Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg and Justice Rebecca Bradley didn’t agree on.

When moderator Steve Walters, senior producer at WisconsinEye, asked the candidates whether justices should reveal the reasons for recusing themselves from a case, Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg said that in general, justices should give a reason except when it would breach attorney-client confidentiality.

Bradley backed up her opponent’s answer with examples.

“I agree with you,” Bradley said. “There are certain circumstances where it’s clear why a justice recuses themselves.”

Those situations, she said, include cases in which she was involved as a trial court judge or a Court of Appeals judge. Bradley also noted that because of her prior work as a corporate attorney, she must recuse herself from cases in which she had an attorney-client relationship with one of the parties.

“But to disclose the reason may breach attorney-client privilege,” Bradley said.

In responding to a question about whether they think arbitration clauses in employment agreements are legal, both candidates agreed to be tight-lipped.

Arbitration clauses in employment agreements often prevent employees from suing their employers in court, and often have disputes settled by  arbitrators. Many times, those arbitrators are selected by the employer. Opponents say the practice deprives employees of their chief means of getting their complaints fairly heard.

Supporters, on the other hand, have said the clauses keep down costs for the court system and businesses. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard oral arguments on the matter.

Kloppenburg, who had the first crack at the question, said she could could not opine on their legality, and Bradley replied that, like her opponent, she could not share her opinion on the topic.

The two also said they agreed that there should be a mechanism for the Supreme Court to handle complaints against fellow justices, and that the court should hear from all the stakeholders regarding what essentially would be a change to the court’s rules.

Throwing the first punch

There were many more topics Kloppenburg and Bradley didn’t agree on.

They traded jabs over topics such as keeping the court’s administrative conferences open and giving circuit courts more discretion over expungement. As in the last debate, Kloppenburg was the first to attack, questioning Bradley’s impartiality in the first question Walters posed to them Wednesday. He asked the candidates what they would do in response to the concern that politics has influenced the court’s decisions.

“I will always follow the law regardless of how I may feel about the outcome of the case or how I feel about the law,” said Bradley.

Kloppenburg answered that she has a nonpartisan record, having worked under attorneys general who were members of both political parties, and that she would apply the law in a way that suits the facts of any case brought before her.

“My opponent, in contrast, has been appointed to three judicial positions in three years,” she said.

She also cited Bradley’s involvement with the Federalist Society and how she voted with members of the court’s conservative majority to dismiss a petition to review the state’s judicial code in November.

Responding to ads, opinion columns

Wednesday’s debate came on the heels of new TV ads slamming Kloppenburg for a Court of Appeals decision and the release of anti-gay columns Bradley wrote as an undergraduate student at Marquette University.

Kloppenburg blasted the ad, saying she and her colleagues simply applied the law.

“The ad is deceitful and distorts my record,” she said. “The facts are it was a per curiam decision by three judges on the Court of Appeals. … We followed the law within the judicial mainstream and entitled him to a hearing,” she said. “The circuit court held the hearing, and he remained in prison. … The system worked.”

However, the two volleyed back and forth over the comments Bradley made in her student columns.

Bradley again apologized for the columns and said her views have changed since then.

“I have grown as a person,” she said. “We are not the same person we were when we were in college. What changed for me was that as you interact with people with different backgrounds … and learn and grow as a person through life experiences, you realize how wrong you might have been at the age of 20.”

Bradley said that change started after she saw the response to her columns while she was still a student. The change continued, she said, especially when she, as a circuit court judge, presided over adoptions by gay parents and cases of gay children abandoned by their parents.

Kloppenburg, however, said Bradley has not shown any change.

“Justice Bradley talks about change but her career does not show much evidence of change. She continues to articulate extreme views,” said Kloppenburg. “She is part of organizations such as the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. I, in contrast, have stood up for all the people in Wisconsin.”

Bradley defended herself by attacking Kloppenburg’s judicial philosophy.

“I think she protests so much because that is exactly her judicial philosophy,” Bradley said. “She believes our Constitution is a living document … that philosophy allows a judge to introduce personal policy preferences and politics.”

Bradley and Kloppenburg are vying for a seat on the high court once held by the late Justice Patrick Crooks. Gov. Scott Walker appointed Bradley to the court after Crooks had died unexpectedly. Crooks had not been planning to run for another term.

Bradley and Kloppenburg beat Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Joe Donald in a primary election held Feb. 16. Bradley finished with 45 percent of the vote and Kloppenburg with 43 percent. About 12 percent of the voters chose Donald.

The general election in the race is scheduled for April 5, the same day as Wisconsin’s presidential primary. Follow @erikastrebel