Judicial Philosophy

Judicial Philosophy: Principles of an Independent, Impartial, and Restrained Judiciary.

As a state court appellate judge, I adhere to a few underlying principles, which I would continue to honor as a Justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 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; instead, they 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 and look for the meaning and intent of its drafters 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, 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 maintain a permanent level playing field and 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.