My path to the judiciary

My Journey to the Bench: Determination, Dedication, and Devotion to Law

My legal path derives from my determination, dedication, and devotion to the law, although I followed a different route to the bench than most judges. I first spent over twenty years in private practice (mostly complex litigation and bankruptcy). Then I was hired as an Assistant Attorney General in 2010 to work in the bankruptcy department. I also worked on foster care cases. That ordinary work at the Department changed when the path of Wisconsin changed in 2011, and I was called upon to assist in some of the more interesting cases seen in our State. Some might believe that that is where my decision to join the judiciary arose—but that would be incomplete, if not wholly inaccurate.

Each of these three factors/characteristics is described below.

Determination

Actually, while I have always believed I might one day be a judge, that desire was ignited during a confidential foster care case where I represented the Department of Children and Families (DCF) that was trying to remove two children. The case involved foster parents who were emotionally abusing two siblings whose birth mother had physically abused them and mentally abandoned them; they were psychologically damaged and had reactive attachment disorder (RAD) (that means they may never be able to attach to anyone or have normal relationships). The foster parents wanted to keep the “good child” (the daughter) but give back the son (who was exhibiting more signs of RAD). There were an inordinate number of hearings (some lasting until midnight), and the circuit Court decided to disregard several rules of evidence, several DCF policies, and ultimately even held that an expired license was not expired. In the end, the brother and sister were split up–it was the most disheartening case I have experienced. Not only for the decision, but for the fact that there was a disregard for the statute’s language. It was one of the reasons I ran for judge, and I keep it in mind at all times to make sure I follow the laws (even when it is difficult), and it helps keep me grounded and humble. I realize that all parties were concerned for the well-being of the children, but I believe the system did not serve either child well.

The stark refusal to accept and follow the clear statutory requirements, adhere to the written law, and ignore legislative and agency directives and policies shook me to the core. That is not how I expect our judiciary to act. It also led me to realize that I could and would do better. It helped me on the Juvenile bench, and continues to inspire me every day on the appellate court.

Following that case, I decided to run for judge. I ran in my home county—Waukesha—and was elected in April 2015, thanks to the support of my family, friends, and the community. I was re-elected on April 6, 2021, and in 2022, I was elected to the Court of Appeals, District II.

Dedication

Simply put, I work hard. I come in early, I stay late. I work on evenings and weekends. I am prepared for all of my cases. I have read the briefs and the supporting caselaw, and I am prepared for an oral argument. I respect the litigants and the parties who appear in front of me. 

I devote time to every case—regardless of the type: a small claims matter gets as much respect as a complex, multi-party litigation. I actually love being a trial court judge—it is the realization of my dreams. I love the interaction with the attorneys, the parties, and the witnesses.

Devotion

As a state court appellate judge, I adhere to a few underlying principles, which I would continue to honor as  Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. First, our written laws are a fundamental pillar in our democracy, and a judge must be independent of agendas, parties, and bias. Next, the law is to be a level playing field: no person is above or beneath the law.

A judge must remember that there are three separate branches of government, and she should be cognizant of the judiciary’s role. A judge must not be too timid to declare and interpret the law, but also must not be an activist, but, instead, must always act with appropriate judicial restraint. A judge must strike the proper balance of deference to the law as written while ensuring that each branch of government stays within its zone of authority. It is the judiciary’s role to say what the law “is” not what we believe it should be. In fact, those decisions that run contrary to a judge’s own personal views are evidence that the judiciary is acting within the parameters set forth when the Country was founded.  

As a judge, I endeavor to respect the law, to look for the meaning and intent of its drafters, all the while honoring the rights and liberties of all Americans.  I respect and constantly endeavor to uphold the Constitutions—state and federal—and strive to remember the oath I took as an attorney, an assistant attorney general, and a judge to act fairly and impartially and without respect to persons. The law is paramount, for without it, our rights would be trampled and chaos would ensue.  Shakespeare had it right, as did the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Halbig v. Burwell, 758 F. 3d 390, 412 (D.C. Ct. App. 2014):

But, high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still. Within constitutional limits, Congress is supreme in matters of policy, and the consequence of that supremacy is that our duty when interpreting a statute is to ascertain the meaning of the words of the statute duly enacted through the formal legislative process. This limited role serves democratic interests by ensuring that policy is made by elected, politically accountable representatives, not by appointed, life-tenured judges.

Respecting the law, however, is not enough. My judicial oath—every judicial oath—requires that we act impartially and without respect to persons. While that sounds odd at first blush, it is actually a sound foundation requiring judges not to take into account who is in the courtroom and not to weigh or consider the power, prestige, or financial heft of any party. But rather to maintain a permanent level playing field and to ensure that all rights of all litigants garner the same respect.

I loved being a trial court judge.  I love being on the court of appeals even more. I love figuring out knotty legal issues. I love training fellow judges. I love working hard and always—always—keeping my feet on the ground, my personal views out of sight, and my mind open.  And, I will excel as a Justice on our State Supreme Court.