Candidates skirmish in debate
Screnock, Dallet argue over NRA, donation rules
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Michael Screnock and Rebecca Dallet sparred over the NRA, judicial philosophy and the role special interests play in electing judges in a Friday night debate.
The hour-long forum at Marquette University Law School, moderated by Mike Gousha of WISN-TV (Channel 12), was the first head-to-head meeting for the two candidates, who emerged from a February primary.
A vivid contrast emerged between Screnock, a Sauk County circuit judge backed by conservatives who promised to “follow the law,” and Dallet, whom he sought to portray as a liberal activist.
Dallet, a Milwaukee County circuit judge supported by liberals, stressed her credentials of presiding over more than 10,000 cases and said: “We’ve got a Supreme Court that’s broken; we’ve had special-interest money pouring into these races buying justice.”
Screnock said he believed the Constitution must be interpreted as originally intended, instead of like “Silly Putty“that “can move and shift.” And he charged that Dallet was not committed to the rule of law, saying she said in an interview that she would advocate for policies that need to be changed.
“For him, the rule of law means following the rules when they fit for his political views of the world,” Dallet shot back.
Screnock defended the endorsement he received from the National Rifle Association and said he made no promises to the group on guns.
“They want justices on the Supreme Court who will follow the rule of law and
interpret the Constitution as originally written,” he said.
Dallet said Screnock vowed to uphold the NRA’s platform.
During the debate, Screnock acknowledged that in college he was arrested and ticketed twice for participating in protests at a Madison abortion clinic. He also said as an attorney he advocated vigorously for his clients.
“Everything changed when I raised my right hand and I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America,” he said.
Dallet said she supports changes that would require Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from cases involving top donors.
“I advocate for having a real rule, one where there is a set amount, that the public can understand, we have a fair court,” Dallet said.
Screnock said rules are already in place.
“I’m concerned about setting an arbitrary dollar limit,” Screnock said.
Dallet was asked about a Wisconsin State Journal report that she presided over at least one case involving attorneys from her husband’s law firm, Husch Blackwell. After the State Journal raised the issue, Dallet recused herself from three recent cases involving the firm.
Dallet said she has gone “above and beyond what’s required.” She said on the one case she remained on, a foreclosure case, her husband’s firm didn’t make an appearance before the court.
Republicans have attacked Dallet for presiding on 102 cases involving 39 attorneys who have contributed more than $21,000 to her campaign.
“We’re absolutely allowed to get contributions from attorneys,” Dallet said. “The reason for that is because people are participating in the process. ... What we need to be talking about are millions of dollars coming in.”
Dallet sought to make the case that Screnock would be controlled by special interests, pointing to the more than $600,000 Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce has spent supporting his candidacy, and the more than $140,000 in support he has received from from the Republican Party.
Screnock accused Dallet of politicizing the race, pointing to an ad she ran in which she took a shot at President Donald Trump.
“It was about our values being under attack and there is nothing politicized about it,” Dallet said.
In her closing statement, Dallet said Screnock was “bought and paid for by the big money special interests” that have too much of a sway on the court.
“It’s time to bring back Wisconsin values of independence and fairness,” she said.
Screnock said he is running because he “cares deeply about the state of Wisconsin and the law,” and vowed to “uphold the rule of law.”
“The role of the court is to be an arbiter of the law,” he said.
A second debate is set for March 30. The election is April 3.