[Madison, WI] – In case you missed it, Judge Jill Karofsky recently compared the decision to get an abortion to the decision to get one’s wisdom teeth removed. Moreover, eroding the rights of law-abiding gun owners remains a high priority for Karofsky as well.
As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jill Karofsky said, “I think that any medical decision, whether you’re talking about having your wisdom teeth out or your meniscus repaired or you’re talking about an abortion, it should be a conversation between a patient and his or her doctor.”
Karofsky also stated the following on limiting our Constitutional right to bear arms: “I think that there are ways that are constitutional that we are able to limit people’s possession of firearms.”
This is just the latest way that Judge Jill Karofsky has made her political agenda for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court known. Karofsky was recently caught on tape saying that she would advocate for social justice issues from the bench of the Supreme Court if elected.
Karofsky’s record of prioritizing her political views stands in stark contrast with Justice Daniel Kelly’s record of standing up for the rule of law and the Constitution. Justice Daniel Kelly has the knowledge, temperament, and principled decision-making the people of Wisconsin want on their Supreme Court.
Read the full write-up here, or find excerpts below.
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court candidates’ opinions on past cases show their views on abortion, guns and voter ID
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
January 24, 2020
The candidates for state Supreme Court won’t say how they’d rule on a host of issues, but past cases offer some clues to their legal thinking.
State Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly faces challenges from Marquette University law professor Ed Fallone and Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky. A Feb. 18 primary will narrow the field to two for the April 7 general election.
Kelly, who was appointed to the high court in 2016 by then-Gov. Scott Walker, has won the backing of conservatives. Fallone and Karofsky are getting support from liberals.
The candidates also differed over a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Heller that determined the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is an individual right, rather than a collective right for groups like militias.
Kelly: “I’ve read it carefully, and I’ve not identified any errors.”
Fallone: “The Heller decision is judicial activism on the right. Justice (Antonin) Scalia took individual words of the Second Amendment, rearranged them and created something new. … I adamantly disagree with the reasoning, but I do not advocate overturning it because I do not think it is healthy to constantly turn these issues into political footballs.”
Karofsky: “I think that there are ways that are constitutional that we are able to limit people’s possession of firearms so that we’re able to live in a country where we don’t have to send our kids to school for code-red drills.”
Kelly said he owns a shotgun and two hunting rifles and obtained a concealed weapons license a couple of months ago. Fallone and Karofsky are not gun owners and do not have concealed weapons licenses.
Asked if that meant he thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was improperly decided, Kelly said, “It certainly carries a suggestion, but as with all the other things that I’ve written about in the past before coming to the court, that’s going to have to stand on its own. You know, I certainly wouldn’t want to be opining on matters that may come before the court.”
Fallone said Kelly’s blog posts suggested that “his understanding of human sexuality is about 100 years out of date.”
“Roe vs. Wade is settled constitutional law and should not be overturned,” he said. “The court has had many opportunities to do so and has rightfully declined.”
“I think that any medical decision, whether you’re talking about having your wisdom teeth out or your meniscus repaired or you’re talking about an abortion, it should be a conversation between a patient and his or her doctor,” she said. “And those are the people who should make that decision.”
Read the full write-up here.