High court hopefuls face off at forum

Listen to this article

The only thing that all three candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court appeared to agree on at Monday evening’s forum was the extent to which decisions handed down  by other states’ supreme courts should influence the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The rest was up for grabs.

The candidates — Madison-based lawyer Tim Burns, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Rebecca Dallet and Sauk County Circuit Court Judge Michael Screnock — faced off at an event held Monday night at the Wisconsin Club by the Federalist Society’s Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter. The moderator was Ryan Owens, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin.

The candidates all used their opening statements to fire off criticism – but took aim at different targets.

Dallet, who went first, criticized Wisconsin’s high court.

“We have a supreme court that is broken,” she said. “Some examples of that are the special interest money that has been pouring into our state to buy justice or a justice.”

Burns, on the other hand, took aim at the Federalist Society itself, a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to promoting the rule of law, individual liberty and traditional values.

“You have provided the brainpower for the re-concentration of wealth in our society that has destroyed our once thriving small towns and thriving cities,” Burns said. “In doing so, you have weakened our democracy to the point that we have elected a perverse show dog named Trump to lead our great nation.”

Screnock, on the other hand, got right down to criticizing his opponents, accusing Burns of calling the notion of judicial impartiality a fairytale and accusing Dallet of calling the rule of law garbage.

But it was Dallet and Burns who spent most of the hour-and-a-half forum sparring.

For example, when Owens asked the candidates to name which U.S. Supreme Court Justice they admired and why, Dallet’s response prompted a lengthy exchange between the two. Dallet contended that Burns had taken public, political positions that could prevent him from hearing cases.

“There’s nothing fair about that, nothing just about that, and nothing progressive about that,” Dallet said.

Burns retorted that Dallet’s position “changes every other day.”

“We need someone on this court who will stand up to Walker and Republican legislators when they step outside of the law,” he said.

Dallet then fired back that Burns was “cherry-picking” facts and mounting “slimy political attacks,” and that she had more experience.

“The fact is, I have more than 20 years of experience, and Mr. Burns’ record cannot stand up to that,” she said.

Burns responded that he has been candid about his political views and said that his experience ranges from supervising English lawyers in English court to counseling clients from various countries, including China and France.

Burns, Dallet and Screnock are all vying to replace Justice Michael Gableman on the high court. Voters head to the polls Feb. 20 to decide which of the candidates will advance to the general election on April 3. Follow @erikastrebel