Daniel Kelly 1-on-1

By, next. Matt: You’re welcome. Now less than a month until the February primary. The four candidates running for the state Supreme Court narrowed to two. At stake, the state’s highest court scales. Conservative Justice Patience ROGGENSACK is retiring. Running to replace her are two liberal candidates, Dane County Judge Evert Mitchell and Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz. and two conservatives, Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow and former Judge Daniel Kelly. Justice Kelly joins us now. Welcome back to the show. >> it’s great to be here. Matt: Fair Core America has announced that they will spend several hundred thousand dollars in recommended radio to support you. This group has ties to these Republican donors. How much are they going to support you? >> i don’t know. I saw there was an article a few months ago. Talk about seven figures. There was a tweet the other day. I do not know. As Ted knows, these are independent costs. One of the ramifications of that is with the rest of Wisconsin, I’ll sit back and learn what happens as it happens. >> Do you accept the support of that group? >> I welcome any support for what we can say about the proper role and function of the Supreme Court. One of the main issues of this campaign is what role does the court have in our constitutional system? When four members of the court think there is a better way, should they decide cases based on the existing law or ignore the law? >> i heard you say that politics is poison to the court. You’ve found support for groups like Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Right to Life, Wisconsin Packed for Life. Do you deny being a political conservative in any of these groups? >> At least I will appear in court. My political beliefs have nothing to do with court work. This is in stark contrast to candidates like Jennett, whose politics mean everything. With the law and — when the laws and the constitution conflict with her personal politics, she goes so far as to set aside the law and pursue personal politics. This is what she means when she says she puts her thumb on the scale when deciding matters. It is an egregious breach of trust and unconstitutional. >> The three groups we just talked to are working to keep the 1849 abortion ban in place. If you are selected, will it stay in place? >> will have to wait and see. What I have done for them is what I have done for every other group in the state of Wisconsin, as I have done for each of our fellow Wisconsinites. I apply the law without regard to my personal preferences or values ​​or politics. >> But you don’t support what you think will flip the band? >> you should ask them. The conversation I had with them, they asked me if you will follow the law in the constitution? I guarantee them that I will follow the law of the constitution because what I have done before and what you are doing is a very good example. >> There are many rumors about the scope of the court in this tournament. But will you do Brian justice? >> i think we were a little surprised how it turned out. He came to us and to us, the citizens of Wisconsin, and he said he was a judicial conservative and that he would uphold the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Then he went to court and it didn’t happen. We can see that in some very high-profile decisions. The Palm case, where Justice Rebecca Bradley and I looked at that order and saw the law come into being, was a case related to the sanctity of home rule. Our constitution says that the legislature makes laws. Judge Rebecca Bradley and I said that’s unconstitutional because the executive branch doesn’t make our laws. Then Brian Hagern disagrees. He said it was good. One of my opponents is campaigning as a judicial conservative. But like Brian, she has nothing to say, and that’s how I understand it, Brian, I believe you can see that he’s a conservative of justice. I believe we mean different things when we say that. With Brian, we had no record of what he meant when he spoke in Justice Conservative. That became a problem because — because once we got to court, we realized that it’s not the same thing that we should be talking about being a constitutional conservative. My concern is that we have no one to judge Thornhill. >> you also served –. What do you think about the election outlook in 2020? >> I’m not comfortable talking about it because I haven’t reviewed it carefully. >> Why didn’t you read his opinion about the election? >> It doesn’t relate to the work I do or the work I’m doing now. If the people of Wisconsin put me back on the Supreme Court, it’s irrelevant to my job. >> thank you very much former judge daniel kelly. Next, the new warning

Daniel Kelly 1-on-1

Updated: 9:30 am CST January 29, 2023

Wisconsin Supreme Court nominee on the state of the race

Wisconsin Supreme Court nominee on the state of the race