ICYMI: Brad Schimel Thinks Wisconsin’s Women Supreme Court Justices Are Too Emotional

Let’s also agree that this is what Schimel said on Nov. 12 during a radio show when asked about the previous day’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court over the legality of a state law adopted in 1849 banning most abortions. He focused his attention on the court’s four-member liberal majority — all women.

Schimel and liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford square off in the April 1 general election for the Supreme Court.

“The other thing that I noted, there were times that when that camera went on several of the liberal justices, they were on the brink of losing it. You could see it in their eyes, and you could hear it in the tone of their voice,” he told conservative talker Meg Ellefson on WSAU-AM (550) and its sister stations in Wausau and Stevens Point. “They are being driven by their emotions. A Supreme Court justice had better be able to set their personal opinions and their emotions aside and rule on the law objectively. This is — we don’t have that objectivity on this court.”

Oh my.

The Journal Sentinel became aware of the audio clip just recently and presented it this week to the four justices in the Supreme Court majority — Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, Janet Protasiewicz and Ann Walsh Bradley.

Let’s just say they did not respond well to Schimel’s remarks. Walsh Bradley is stepping down later this year, and Schimel and Crawford are vying to fill her seat, with the winner determining the court’s ideological bent.

In a joint statement, the court majority said that everyone gets a fair shot when they appear in front of the state Supreme Court, no matter who they are. What matters, they said, is the law.

“Unfortunately, Brad Schimel is showing he has an antiquated and distorted view of women,” the four justices continued. “By suggesting that women get too emotional and are unfit to serve as judges and justices, he turns back decades of progress for women.”

They said these “petty and personal attacks” don’t belong on the court or in the current campaign. For reasons such as these, the four justices said they have endorsed Crawford over Schimel.

Asked to respond at a public event on Thursday, Schimel was dismissive of their comments, saying he didn’t bring up gender in his analysis of the oral arguments. He labeled the statement from the four liberals “out of bounds” and “nonsense.”

Schimel said he stood by his remarks, though he appeared to narrow his focus.

“It’s plainly clear that that one of the justices, at least, was not able to stay objective. She had lost control of her emotions,” Schimel said after a roundtable talk at the GOP’s Hispanic center in Milwaukee. “Men do that, too, but she could not stay objective. In that case, she was literally yelling at an attorney.”

And which justice was that? Schimel clarified, “The one that was yelling at the attorney was Justice Karofsky. She was plainly yelling.”

Karofsky did not respond to a request for comment.

A review of a Wisconsin Eye video of the court hearing shows all seven justices participated in the adversarial proceeding on Nov. 11. Karofsky made several forceful arguments, especially when she said upholding the 1849 ban would mean “signing the death warrants” of women and children. But she didn’t appear to be yelling or screaming.

[…]

Just imagine the atmosphere if Schimel wins and ends up serving with three of the four liberals.

For the record, Schimel and Crawford are polar opposites on abortion rights.

Schimel, a former Republican attorney general, has called himself “firmly pro-life” and says there is “not a constitutional right to abortion in our state Constitution.” Crawford has acknowledged that she is “pro-choice” and calls the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion “wrong.”

Still, both candidates have pledged to be impartial, despite their partisan ties.

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide, a decision that left states like Wisconsin in legal limbo. Three Planned Parenthood clinics and one independent clinic in Wisconsin stopped providing services for fear of violating the state’s 1849 abortion ban, which says that “any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of the unborn child” is guilty of a felony.

Two years ago, Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a suit challenging the 176-year-old law, and Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in December 2023 that the law in question does not apply to abortions but to feticide. After her ruling, the four clinics, located in Dane, Milwaukee and Sheboygan counties, began providing abortions again.

Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, appealed the trial court decision, contending the 1849 ban should be enforceable. The two sides argued their points before the Supreme Court in early November.

A second abortion case has yet to be heard by the high court. That one has to do with whether the state Constitution protects the right to abortion.

A Schimel campaign aide criticized the four liberal justices for their criticism of the conservative candidate, suggesting they were creating issues that didn’t exist.

“This is a pathetic attempt to gaslight voters, as there is no mention of gender in Judge Schimel’s criticism of the current majority that views the Supreme Court as a policy deciding body — instead of a fair and objective court,” said Jacob Fischer, spokesman for Schimel.

[…]

In fact, the Journal Sentinel asked the four liberal justices and both campaigns to respond to Schimel’s comments on the conservative radio show from more than three months ago.

Crawford spokesman Derrick Honeyman said: “Brad Schimel’s disgusting insults are just part of a pattern of disturbing behavior and extremism that has no place in our state, and certainly not on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”