Did anyone watch the Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates' debate?

Noticing that the election is tomorrow, I wondered aloud, "Did the candidates ever debate?" And then, having googled, "Oh! There was a debate!" I kind of think that if I didn't notice and watch it, nobody did. Here's an article about it. I feel that I know what the article will say before reading it: Both candidates asserted that they would decide cases according to the law and that political preferences would have absolutely no effect, and both cited judicial temperament and long experience as their qualification.

"I don't see it as the job of the Supreme Court justice to be for or against any political policy," [Justice Ann Walsh] Bradley said. "Our only agenda is to uphold the Constitution and serve the people of this state."

Rock County Circuit Judge James Daley called Bradley an "activist judge" and himself a "dinosaur," saying that he was for traditional judicial standards. ... "I'm running because I'm not an activist jurist," Daley said....

Daley, a former prosecutor, often went into details of the law, sometimes halting briefly as he cited cases and legal terms. Bradley, a former Marathon County judge, was more fluid and used folksier language and broad examples.

Just as I suspected... although I didn't predict the haltingly legalistic vs. fluidly folksy distinction. Whether that characterization is accurate, I don't know. I haven't watched the debate. But I will. It's streamable here.

"It would be strange indeed to give a clause that makes federal law supreme a reading that limits Congress�s power to enforce that law..."

"... by imposing mandatory private enforcement � a limitation unheard � of with regard to state legislatures," wrote Justice Scalia in an opinion called Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, issued this morning.

To say that the Supremacy Clause does not confer a right of action is not to diminish the significant role that courts play in assuring the supremacy of federal law. For once a case or controversy properly comes before a court, judges are bound by federal law....

The dissent agrees with us that the Supremacy Clause does not provide an implied right of action, and that Congress may displace the equitable relief that is traditionally available to enforce federal law. It disagrees only with our conclusion that such displacement has occurred here.

The dissenting opinion is by Justice Sotomayor, who is joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Kagan.  The statute the 2 sides are interpreting is the Medicaid Act.

ADDED: In the comments, Smilin' Jack says: "WTF? Have they run out of those Easter-Bunny-Display-in-National-Park cases? At least those were funny."

Yes, let's get back to talking about cake. The important thing in America right now is cake. Why are we all hepped up to talk about RFRA (which had previously bored the bejeezus out of everyone)? Cake.