Jay Weber Show transcript 3-22-32 7:10 am (audio clips embedded in segment below)
I know that most of you weren’t able, or interested, in watching the one, single, supreme court debate that was held yesterday-but if you did watch it- you saw why Janet Protasiewicz didn’t want to debate.
She came off looking like a person who only has a tenuous grasp of the law. Who is a political partisan. And who spent most of the time making excuses for why she wasn’t a better Milwaukee County judge or handing down tougher sentences.
This really was a stark contrast. As one twitter user put it: there was a dramatic chasm between the two, when it came to their answers and depth of knowledge.
Daniel Kelly knows the law and the constitution inside and out. He is a careful jurist and legal mind. He knows why our founders’ put guardrails around each separate branch of government, and why. He knows that it is not a court’s job to legislate.
And Janet Protasiewicz seems to know-or is unable to explain-any of those things.
She really did sound and look like a person struggling to keep up. Just watch the debate if you don’t believe me.
And i-do- encourage you to google and watch the debate...so you will see first-hand how no-jail Janet was really...really.... Relying on those ‘well worn’ talking points about ‘approaching cases fairly’...but even in the debate! She got political.
Even in the debate!!- her rhetoric didn’t match up-at all-with the sort of fairness or open-mindedness that a judge is supposed to have.
Meanwhile, Daniel Kelly showed time and again that he has the right constitutionally conservative philosophy and respect for the law that a supreme court justice should have.
Let’s run a few of the more ‘telling’ moments in that regard: for example-when the issue of the redistricting maps came up- Protasiewicz launched into an impassioned speech about how ‘we all know those maps are unfair’...and demonstrated the very political partisanship that a judge isn’t supposed to bring to the bench...and if you watch the video...she got so caught up in her political answer. That she almost didn’t have time to veer back and try to cover her tracks and still sat. But I can be fair.
(play the cut)
Janet -in front of the state bar and a bunch of lawyers- embarrassed herself with an overtly political answer. And so, it didn’t take Dan Kelly long to point it out.
(play the cut)
The entire hour was Protasiewicz repeating her hollow claim that she is fair and impartial...while seeming to prove otherwise.
In another moment. She was asked by JR ross of wispolitics.com about all of that pro-abortion and Emily’s list money that she’s collected.
(play cut three)
Political Protasiewicz has been running around the state- sending every ‘hard signal’ that she can that she will overturn Wisconsin’s abortion-related laws and do the far left’s bidding and so.... all Dan Kelly had to do was remind the audience that the supreme court is supposed to follow the law-not dole out political favors:
(play cut four_)
Then they got around to asking about Protasiewicz’s terrible track record of being soft on crime. She was asked to respond to the ads that detail numerous cases of bad ‘no jail’ sentences...and said this.
(play cut 5)
Again...justice Kelly only had to refer to the decades of ‘receipts’ that we have on Protasiewicz’s soft sentences.
(play cut six)
Kelly calling her out for using covid as an excuse for a light sentence seemed to ‘set Janet off’ and had her denying the narrative.
(play cut seven)
Folks-in the moment- while the debate was still going on, Daniel Kelly’s campaign put out the court records of the case in question and right there in black and white...is Janet Protasiewicz suggesting that she wasn’t going to hand out a prison sentence due to covid.
The woman spent the afternoon lying.
I have one final cut- of Protasiewicz -asked about an ad from her campaign that labeled Daniel Kelly a monster for defending a career criminal...or something or another. I haven’t seen the ad.
But her answer seemed to smear-all-defense attorneys, and Kelly picked up on it.
(play cut 8)
Folks. This debate was ugly. And it became apparent why Protasiewicz only wanted to agree to one single debate- on a Tuesday-in the middle of the day-when no one could watch it.
She cannot defend her positions. She cannot defend her sentences. She cannot defend her overt politics. It was a disaster for her...
And she proved in Technicolor why she is not fit for this court.
And no-the accusations surrounding her personal life-of elder abuse, alcoholism, and racist language- didn’t even come up.
I knew the moderators wouldn’t raise them.
Daniel Kelly chose not to either.
I found that to be a shame, because i wanted to watch her come unglued over them...and see how she’d choose to respond.
This debate was a one-sided slaughter.
It was a legal heavyweight.... toying...with a wide-eyed pretender.
And i wish every voter could have seen it-and I wish there were ten more before now and election day. This woman would have no chance of winning-if that was the case. No matter how many millions of dollars the democrats and the activist left have spent TO PROP HER UP.
Photo Credit: Fox 6 Milwaukee
Story and audio credit: Wisconsin Bar Association, WISC-TV and WisPolitics.com.