In wrapping up her introduction at a Dane County Bar Association forum Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley accused her opponent, Appeals Court Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, of being a hypocrite. Bradley called out Kloppenburg for criticizing the justice’s appointment to the Wisconsin Supreme Court by Gov. Scott Walker while “hiding from voters” her own failed attempts to secure judicial appointments. The point seemed worth making at the time, but Kloppenburg capitalized on it a moment later.
“I did not get the jobs I applied for because I didn’t have the political connections that my opponent has to get those judicial appointments,” said Kloppenburg. “And I’m honored that I owe my judicial career to the people of Wisconsin and my opponent owes her judicial career to Gov. Scott Walker.”
While soft-spoken and measured, Kloppenburg, who was elected to the appeals court in 2012, was ready to spar, more than once besting her opponent’s attempts to undermine her experience and integrity. Bradley, a less polished speaker, nevertheless held her own, especially considering the conservative justice was in what could be considered hostile territory, liberal Dane County. She forcefully defended herself, including during the question-and-answer session, when she was asked about columns and letters she wrote while in college that, among other things, denigrated members of the LGBT community and people living with AIDS.
Bradley said she started to change her mind and heart on the issue of homosexuality after getting to know people who were gay. “I think many people can appreciate the fact that as we grow up and experience and encounter different people...we change our minds on things. We realize the mistakes we made in our youth.”
Kloppenburg, considered a liberal-leaning judge, responded that Bradley’s articulated and published hateful statements “reflect a pattern of extremism.”
“Just 10 years ago, she published another article that equated contraception as murder,” countered Kloppenburg. “I have been consistent in my career and consistent in my opinions.”
But Bradley then flipped the tables on Kloppenburg, suggesting that her criticism reflected a character flaw for a judge. “As a member of the judiciary I find it shocking that another member of the judiciary would not believe in the ability of people to change.... Because we sit in judgment of people, and if we think they can’t do better...that they can’t improve, somebody who holds those views has no business sitting on the bench.”
Bradley was asked about the time she left court during oral argument to attend a campaign event at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. She said she “didn’t miss a thing” because she was able to later watch the video on WisconsinEye.
“I made sure before I left that day that I had read all the briefs...and that all of my questions had been answered. So I missed absolutely nothing.”
Kloppenburg hotly disputed Bradley’s logic, noting her own experience arguing before the state Supreme Court and watching colleagues from the Department of Justice do so as well.
“In 23 years I never saw or heard of a justice leaving the bench in the middle of oral argument. It is a dereliction of duty and is an affront to the attorneys who spent so much time preparing for oral argument and to the parties who are left feeling ‘did they get a fair shake?’ Oral argument is a dynamic, integral process of the review process before the Supreme Court.”
Bradley’s take on oral argument, including her statement that she “would have requested re-argument” in a case where she had additional questions, “stunned” local attorney Jeffrey Spitzer-Resnick, a supporter of Kloppenburg, who responded in a blog post.
“Justice Rebecca Bradley admitted to a large group of attorneys that it was unfathomable for any further questioning from the other six Supreme Court justices, or any of the answers from either attorney for the party, to educate her in any way.... As someone who has practiced law for over 30 years and has presented appellate oral argument many times, it is abundantly clear to me that many appellate judges think of new or follow-up questions based on a colleague’s question, or an attorney’s answer.”
Spitzer-Resnick also blasted Bradley’s suggestion that attorneys could simply return to the court for more questions that she thought of later.
“Is she completely unaware of the cost to the parties to require attorneys to prepare for and present oral argument a second time? The additional cost would have been in the thousands of dollars. Of course, her request would have also delayed the proceedings and final decision, raising anxiety for both parties in the process and delaying the ultimate outcome.”
The candidates will meet again today at a Madison Rotary forum at the Inn on the Park. The election is April 5.
