Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates differ over 'truly progressive' approaches

MADISON - Two candidates for state Supreme Court clashed Friday over their approaches, with one championing liberal ideals and the other arguing judges must steer clear of political issues so they can remain impartial. 

"In the past century, it was only when progressives worked together that we’ve been able to tame the power of concentrated wealth and big business," Madison attorney Tim Burns said at a candidate forum. 

He spoke positively of the Affordable Care Act, emphasized the importance of voting rights and criticized Act 10, which all but ended collective bargaining for public workers in Wisconsin. He blamed "right-wing judges" for taking protections away from ordinary citizens and called President Donald Trump an "unhinged billionaire."

One of his opponents, Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Rebecca Dallet, contended candidates for the state's high court shouldn't publicly take positions on such issues. 

"Anyone who has made statements on cases and issues should recuse themselves," she said. "I do not think making these open statements is progressive. I think what is truly progressive is independent courts."

A third candidate, Sauk County Judge Michael Screnock, did not attend because of a scheduling conflict. Screnock helped successfully defend Act 10 from legal challenges for Gov. Scott Walker's administration before Walker appointed him as a judge.

Dallet said of her opponents: "One worked for Scott Walker; one is trashing Scott Walker."

The three are running to replace conservative Justice Michael Gableman, who is not seeking a second 10-year term.

A Feb. 20 primary will narrow the field to two candidates. The general election is April 3. 

Friday's forum was sponsored by the Madison chapter of the liberal American Constitution Society and held in the offices of law firm Foley & Lardner. 

Burns and Dallet both criticized the Supreme Court for adopting ethical rules that say judges do not have to step aside from cases if the litigants had spent heavily in their campaigns to get on the court.

ARCHIVE:State high court says campaign donations can't force recusals

RELATED:Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects recusal changes when campaign donors are litigants

Conservatives on the court showed support for those rules in April when the justices voted 5-2 to reject a proposal from retired judges that would have forced judges to get off cases involving campaign backers.

Both also called for reversing a June decision that ended the court's nearly two-decade practice of holding administrative meetings of the court in public. Arguments on cases continue to be held in public, but meetings where court rules are debated are now held behind closed doors because of that 5-2 decision.

RELATED:Wisconsin Supreme Court votes to keep more meetings behind closed doors

If Burns or Dallet were to win next year, they likely would not be able to immediately change the ethical or meeting rules. Either of them would give liberals a third vote on those issues, but conservatives would still hold a majority on the court.