JASON STEIN, THANKS VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> TURNING TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, ACRIMONY AMONG JUSTICES HAS HIT A FEVER PITCH IN RECENT WEEKS.

>> WITH THE LIBERAL WING NEWLY IN THE MAJORITY CONSERVATIVES ARE EXPRESSING THE STING OF BEING IN THE 4-3 MINORITY.

THERE ARE ACTIONS CAUSING THE IN-FIGHTING LIKE THE LIBERAL JUSTICES FIRING AND REPLACING A COURT DIRECTOR.

BUT THE ESSENTIAL OUTRAGE FOR CONSERVATIVES HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT NEW LIBERAL JUSTICE JAN JANUARY P. WAS EL ELECTEDED WHERE SHE SAID THE VOTING MAPS WERE RIGGED AND UNFAIR.

REPUBLI REPUBLICANS HER TO RECUSE OVER THE MAPS AND IF SHE DOESN'T THREATEN TO IMPEACH HER.

A LIBERAL LAW FIRM SAID IN A COURT FILING OVER THE MATTER, QUOTE, UNHAPPY WITH THIS ELECTORAL RESULT WHICH THEY COULD NOT PREVENT THROUGH GERRYMANDERING, REPUBLICANS SEEK TO NULLIFY THE RESULTS AND PICK THEIR JUSTICES.

THIS IS JUST THE LATEST PRECINCT DUST-UP IN WISCONSIN.

A HIGH COURT HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS NON-PARTISANSHIP AND COLLIE JAL.

WHEN DID IT BECOME A PROXY FOR POLITIC S?

WE TURN TO ZAK, OUR CORRESPONDENT.

>> HELLO.

>> THE IDEA OF IMPEACHING A JUSTICE SEEMS FARFETCHED BUT GIVEN THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, MAYBE NOT.

WHERE IS THIS RIGHT NOW?

>> NOW IT IS IN THE LAND OF THREATS AND ALLEGATIONS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW FAR THIS WILL GO.

IT COULD GET SERIOUS VERY FAST.

THE ASSEMBLY REPUBLICANS COULD PASS THIS AND LIKELY GET PASSED IN THE CHAMBER.

WHETHER IT GO TO THE SENATE AND HAVING ALL IN THE SENATE VOTE TO IMPEACH SEEMS MORE QUESTIONABLE THAN WHETHER THE ASSEMBLY COULD DO IT.

BUT THEN THERE'S QUESTIONS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MEANTIME.

EVEN IF THERE IS IMPEACHMENT CHARGES BROUGHT FORWARD IS THAT ENOUGH TO THROW ENOUGH CHAOS OR SLOW A PROCESS THAT PERHAPS REDISTRICTING MAPS TALKED ABOUT, IF THE COURT TAKES THE CASE, MAY NOT BE IN EFFECT UNTIL AFTER 2024, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WHAT REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

DELAY CHANGES TO MAPS THAT GIVE THEM THEIR POWER.

>> INDEED.

WE THINK OF THIS AS A MAJOR IMPOSSIBLY AND UNSEEMLY KIND OF FIGHT WITH MAJOR IMPLICATIONS BUT IT IS NOT THE FIRST TROUBLE THE SUPREME COURT HAS SPILLED INTO THE PUBLIC EYE.

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THIS COURT HAS HAD A TROUBLED HISTORY, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY, THE LAST 15, 16 YEARS.

WE HAD ONE JUSTICE ACCUSED OF CHOKING ANOTHER JUSTICE INSIDE THE CAPITOL.

THAT WENT ALL THE WAY BACK UP TO THE COURT OF WHETHER HE SHOULD LOSE HIS SEAT IN THAT CASE.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN ALL SORTS OF DUST-UPS AND ALLEGATIONS.

I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THE SPEED OF WHICH SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE COMING OUT.

OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS MOST OF THIS KIND OF SNIDE REMARKS AND SNIPPING AT EACH OTHER HAS BEEN DONE IN THE FOOTNOTES OF DECISIONS.

THE MAJOR DECISION WILL COME OUT.

THEN A JUSTICE IN THEIR COMMENTARY WILL TAKE A POT SHOT OR TWO AT SOMEONE ELSE THEY THINK SHOULD AGREE WITH THEM OR SAYING HOW THEY DON'T ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION.

NOW THIS IS HAPPENING AT THE SPEED OF E-MAIL, IN PART BECAUSE THE SPEED OF THE CHANGE IS SO MUCH FASTER.

CONSERVATIVES ON THE COURT AND REPUBLICAN SUPPORTERSES OUT IN THE PUBLIC WANT THIS INFORMATION NOW FASTER.

THEY ARE RELEASING IT FASTER.

INSTEAD OF HAPPENING IN THE BACKGROUND AND COMING OUT SLOWLY OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, WE ARE GETTING IT ALMOST AS IT HAPPENS.

>> I SAID HISTORICALLY THE COURT WAS KNOWN TO AT LEAST PROJECT NON-PARTISANSHIP COLLEGIALITY, WHEN DID THAT CHANGE?

>> A LOT WILL LOOK BACK TO 2007 WHEN THERE WAS AN OPEN SEAT.

LINDA CLIFFORD AS LIBERAL AND ANNETTE ZEIGLER, THE CURRENT JUSTICE RUNNING AS A CONSERVATIVE FOR THAT SEAT, COMING OFF A PERIOD WHERE SOME OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS MADE A POLITICAL IMPACT.

ONE WAS THE LEAD PAINT IMPACT WHICH ALLOWED A LOT OF PAINT MANUFACTURERS TO BE SUED.

THEY DID NOT LIKE THAT.

IN THAT RACE WISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS IN COMMERCE, THE BUSINESS LOBBY, DUMPED A TON OF MONEY INTO THAT RACE AND THE FIRST TIME WE SAW HEAVY HITTER GROUPS PUT A POLITICAL SLANT ON A RACE AND IMPACT THE FINAL MARGIN.

IT WENT FROM THERE.

THE NEXT YEAR WE SAW JUSTICE -- BECAME JUSTICE GABLE RUN ONE OF THE MOST RACIST ADDS IN HISTORY IN DEFEATING BUTLER AND SINCE THEN THEY HAVE BECOME MORE PROXIES FOR PARTIES.

BEFORE THAT YOU SAW CANDIDATES KEEP PARTIES ALMOST AT ARM'S LENGTH SAYING WE DON'T WANT YOUR HELP OR ENDORSED BY YOU.

JUSTICE PROSSER AT ONE POINT TOLD ME HE WASN'T A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN ANYMORE BUT CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHER AFTER HE WAS THE ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN SPEAKER SO PEOPLE REALLY TRIED TO KEEP DISTANCE FROM PARTIES.

BUT OVER THE LAST DECADE IF YOU WANT TO WIN YOU NEED THE PARTY APPARATUS TO FUNDS THOSE ADS AND USE TO GET OUT THE VOTE OPERATIONS DOOR-TO-DOOR.

THAT'S BECOME MORE AND MORE CLEAR IN EVERY ELECTION SINCE THEN.

>> AS TO JUSTICE P. THE OTHER COMPANY WAS ABORTION RIGHTS.

COULDN'T THE CURRENT RECUSAL IMPEACHMENT BATTLE REPEAT IF SHE IS NOT SIZE LINED FIRST?

>> YOU COULD SEE THAT.

I THINK ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISSUE OF REDISTRICTING AND ABORTION IS REDISTRICTING ACTUALLY THREATENS POWER OF REPUBLICANS TO KEEP THEIR MAJORITY.

IF MAPS CHANGE, THEY WILL LOSE SEATS.

EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.

THEY WILL LOSE SEATS IN THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY.

WHETHER THEY LOSE THE MAJORITY ISN'T CLEAR, DEPENDS ON THE MAPS, BUT WILL LEASE SEATS AND POWER.

IF THE ABORTION SITUATION CHANGES THERE ARE SOME CONSERVATIVES SAYING THAT IS BETTER, PERHAPS TAKING THAT ISSUE OFF THE TABLE.

WE HAVE SEEN WHAT THE ISSUE OF ABORTION HAS DONE TO ENERGIZE INDEPENDENT YOUNG WOMEN, YOUNG VOTERS, MODERATE REPUBLICANS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS IN THIS BUILD ING THAT WILL PUBLICLY SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE ABORTION IN WISCONSIN PROOI PRIVATELY IN NON-FACTOR.

IF THE SUPREME COURT DID THAT THEY WOULDN'T FEEL BAD IF THEY KEPT MAJORITIES.

>> IN THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THEMSELVES NOW GET TO DECIDE WHETHER TO RECUSE.

HOW DOES THAT FACTOR HERE?

>> WELL, IT FACTORS IN THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS COMING FORWARD, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT WILL GET STALLED.

MORE THAN LIKELY LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, THERE WILL BE A LAWSUIT FILED AT SOME POINT SAYING THIS ISN'T LEGAL, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHTS TO DO THAT OR THE GROUNDS TO DO THAT.

THERE WILL BE PEOPLE TRYING TO THROW A WRENCH WOULD IT COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ OFF THE BUNCH.

IT COULD GO TO THE COURT AND COULD BE PROTASIEWICZ SAYING WHETHER OR NOT TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM A CASE THAT WOULD REFLECT ON HER.

WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE PAST.

THE CONSERVATIVE NOW MINORITY HAD OPTIONS IN THE PAST TO PASS CLEAR RECUSAL RULES AND DECLINED.

THEY ALWAYS WANTED TO BE LEFT UP TO INDIVIDUALS.

FRANKLY, THEY HAVE SAT ON PLENTY OF CASES THAT INVOLVED THEIR CAMPAIGN DONORS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE BROUGHT THEM THROUGH.

EVERYONE IN THIS BUILDING IS CONNECTED TO POLITICS.

EVERYONE ON THE BENCH IS CONNECTED TO POLITICS IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

WHILE THEY SIT IN CHAMBERS THEY WANT TO BE NON-PARTISANSHIP BUT THAT IS NOT THE REALITY OF POLITICS THAT SURROUNDS AND ENGULFS THEM IN ALL THE