August 31, 2011

Don't call me Shirley/Buddy.

The file on the police investigation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident contains accounts of 2 incidents in which someone used a too-familiar name and the immediate consequence was an inappropriate touching. In putting these 2 accounts together here, I don't mean to vouch for their truth. I simply want to juxtapose them for the purpose of examining their similarity.

First is the "chokehold" incident itself, as described by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (page 34):  Justice Bradley said when she approached Justice Prosser, she said to him, "Buddy, get out of my office." Justice Bradley explained that the sobriquet "Buddy" put her "in control" and Justice Prosser "in the diminutive." By "in the diminutive," Bradley meant something like making him seem small or putting him in the state "of being familiarly known, lovable, pitiable, or contemptible." There were accompanying gestures from Bradley, and, as we know by now, Prosser proceeded to put his hands around her neck.

In the second incident, from 2008 (page 64), Justice Gableman "remembers making a comment to the chief justice in a joking manner and used her first name, Shirley, during this comment towards her."
Justice Gableman said right after he said the chief justice's first name, Justice Bradley came over to him, hit him on the back of the head and told him that he needed to show respect to the chief. Justice Gableman said that he believed Justice Bradley was not joking because nobody was laughing at the time. Justice Gableman said he has not told anyone about that incident and has not talked about that incident with anyone, including Justice Bradley, after it happened.
In both instances, a name is used and it's Justice Bradley who regards the name as disrespectful. In both instances, the name immediately precedes a regrettable touching. In one instance, Justice Bradley is the person who says the name and receives the regrettable touching, and in the other, she hears the name and performs the regrettable touching.

In the first instance, the person who used the name did so with an intent to express disrespect, and the named person is the one who does the touching. In the second instance, the named person's reaction isn't even described. We don't know what the Chief Justice thought of Justice Gableman calling her "Shirley." (It's simply her first name, not a diminutive.) It is Justice Bradley who imposed the interpretation of disrespect and who inflicted retribution (in this story, as told by Gableman, whose veracity remains in issue).

So we have 2 stories depicting Justice Bradley as having a heightened sensitivity to the wounding effect of an over-familiar form of address. In one, she deliberately uses a hostile epithet to diminish and control someone who is already the target of her anger. In the other, someone becomes the target of her anger after he uses someone's real name in what seems to have been a reasonably friendly if awkward effort at conversation.

112 comments:

ndspinelli said...

Overanalyze much? Maybe you should consider taking up chess.

MadisonMan said...

What a toxic work environment the WSC sounds like. And the blame should accumulate at the top. Someone actually expects to be called (Chief) Justice so and so by their colleagues and not (first name)?

Message to Justices: GROW UP.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Sounds like Bradley has a problem, and Abrahamson has let it fester rather than dealing with it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm getting lesbian love vibes from Bradley towards Abrahamson.

edutcher said...

Bradley needs an anger management calss.

Or two.

Or ten.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm getting lesbian love vibes from Bradley towards Abrahamson.

It does sound that way.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Shirley you jest.

Chuck66 said...

I can't wait to read the reports on the Great Balloon Popping incident of 2011.

Nonapod said...

Rumack: Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

Lincolntf said...

..."Prosser proceeded to put his hands around her neck..."

I don't believe that that's been established. He "made contact" with her neck as she charged him is the way I understand it. "Around her neck" implies a different action altogether.

Syte said...

My read of the Sheriff's report (and I did read it) supports everything Ann is saying, plus more.
Bradley is the problem, Bradley is the aggressor, and Bradley is the liar. Abrahamson supports her.

Either that, or Prosser and his 3 witnesses are aggressors and perjurers.

We are in trouble. Assault of a Supreme Court Justice, criminal accusation against a Supreme Court Justice, and Supreme Court Justices perjuring themselves, are not a light matter that can easily be dismissed or forgotten.

Either 2 of them did it, or 4 of them did it.

Either way, Wisconsin loses.

Having read the Sheriff's report, I side with Prosser's complete innocence (which also turns fewer Supreme Court Justices into liars).

God help us!

gerry said...

Would Bradley soil her dungarees if someone popped a balloon in her chambers?

The woman sounds a little looney.

MadisonMan said...

I can't wait to read the reports on the Great Balloon Popping incident of 2011.

I did see that the balloon owner is suing the popper for violating her (his?) Constitutional Rights.

Seemed like a pretty vague lawsuit, but it was just a news report.

Ann Althouse said...

@Lincolntf Here's Prosser's own description as summarized on p. 41 of the report:

"Justice Prosser went on to say that he remembers the warmth on the side of Justice Bradley's neck in his hands as his hands were touching her neck. Justice Prosser said he never squeezed Justice Bradley's neck at any point, and said that his hands were definitely on Justice Bradley's neck versus her shoulders. Justice Prosser said it was a "total reaction to what was happening." We asked Justice Prosser if he recalled what fingers may have touched Justice Bradley's neck, and how they were touching Justice Bradley's neck. Justice Prosser said he could not recall the exact location of his fingers, and he could not recall how many fingers were touching Justice Bradley's neck either during this time. He said he could only recall the warmth in Justice Bradley's neck. Justice Prosser said several times during our contact that this whole incident lasted "a split second". This included the time from Justice Bradley "charging" at him, his reaction with his hands on her neck, to him removing his hands from her neck. Justice Prosser said he had no recollection of his thumbs on Justice Bradley's neck at any point. Justice Prosser could only recall his fingers touching the side of her neck, with one hand on either side of her neck. Justice Prosser said at no point did he
squeeze or apply any pressure."

So... one hand on either side of the neck. I suppose my use of the word "around" could be questioned if you picture the hands stiffly straight, with no curving of the fingers... the fingers sensing the warmth. It's so hard to remember the details, but the warmth -- the warmth! -- why that was simply unforgettable!

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

With all due respect, smacking a fellow justice upside the head - even if done with the utmost of respect, seems disrespectful.

ndspinelli said...

Maybe a bridge club? Or take a trip down to Arlington Park; horses sometimes die on the track, maybe they'll let you beat one.

Ann Althouse said...

@ndspinelli Sorry, kiddo. It's not over. It's a big deal here in Wisconsin, where the prestige of our supreme court is shot to hell. I am a professor at the law school in this state, and the condition of the state supreme court matters a lot. You skip the posts if you don't like them. I am not moving on.

People who say move on are often trying to deflect attention. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but your repeated posts that sound like you are have been noted. It's the dead horse YOU are beating.

bagoh20 said...

Bradley brings to mind the situation in our grade schools today where the simplest natural behaviors by children are called bullying for the sole purpose of allowing adults to bully those children with serious consequences. I think we have a society run by very large children.

I think this is due to the fact that today's adults never had the kind of character building real difficulties and trials that earlier children had. We call them "boomers".

Their parents were over-achievers who brought together a new level technological advancement resulting from a century of industrial revolution and combined it with a lack of appreciation for the value of their own difficult upbringing. This produced a generation of pampered, entitlement thinking brats who now hold the levers, and we are unprepared.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

Cherry picking the cops' report, Miss A.

Perhaps you should note that Bradley told Prosser to leave her office when he was screaming, which he has done on numerous times (allegedly)--and that P. used "Shirley" , upsetting CJ Abr. Or that Miss Bradley's a petite woman, and former educator who often uses her hands for emphasis. Or perhaps quote Crooks' testimony that he has witnessed Prosser shrieking and acting like a baby on numerous occasions.

It's not about politics, but about whether Prosser assaulted Bradley--which looks fairly evident, from the reports.

Mark O said...

Just video everything.

wef said...

The pampered-left show has been going on too long, but not surprising: less-sophisticated rubes are picking up the tab. Old, tired, jaded, dried-up Vagina Monologues.

Mark O said...

And, the reason Prosser's hands are near or on her neck is that no man would dare block or push a woman anywhere near her chest. Can you imagine if he had merely put his hand somewhere near her armpits to keep her away. Wow.

You folks out there in Wisconsin are in for more fun.

Ann Althouse said...

Before she was a judge, Bradley was a teacher at Aquinas High School — a Roman Catholic school in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

I can picture a schoolteacher cuffing a kid in the head for insolence. I'm trying to picture the move against Gableman (assuming it happened).

I note that treating a man like a schoolkid is another way of "putting him in the diminutive."

J said...

Prosser had his "hands on her neck" (and she's 5-3, 130 lbs per the cops report)

Felony assault in most places, except when like the perp's wearing a black robe, knows all the DAs in the state, and has Scott Walker sucking his dick (and U of WI law professors for that matter).

Ann Althouse said...

Mark O said..."And, the reason Prosser's hands are near or on her neck is that no man would dare block or push a woman anywhere near her chest. Can you imagine if he had merely put his hand somewhere near her armpits to keep her away. Wow."

That theory is undercut by Justice Prosser's own words: Page 41: "I asked Justice Prosser if he felt he had any options at the time this was happening. He said this incident happened too quickly to determine any other options. Justice Prosser then mentioned how he had been talking in the meeting on June 15th with all the justices, Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs, and Margaret Brady, and how he had mentioned that he felt he had four options. The options he felt he had were to have pushed the head, the neck, the shoulders or do nothing."

He doesn't mention the chest. He cited these 4 options in the June 15th meeting as well.

I really can't fathom going for the neck. When do you even contact someone's neck? Head would, of course, be terrible, but shoulders was the best answer. You could hold an attacker back. (Also, what about grabbing the wrists or hands of someone flailing at you?)

Prosser goes on to say those were only "intellectual" options and he really didn't have any time to think.

To be fair here, it is important to accept the reality that Prosser did reach for the neck — briefly, without pressure, without forethought, defensively — yes — but he did opt for the neck.

This is part of the picture. I am trying to be fair and accurate and I am trying to understand.

Note that Prosser has said that touching the neck was wrong. He said it in an effort, I think, to move forward and share responsibility for restoring a decent environment on the court. He did not get any corresponding conciliatory statement from Bradley. In fact, his statement has become one more thing to use against him.

Ann Althouse said...

"Felony assault in most places...."

Yeah, if you leave out the context of self-defense, as whoever leaked the story to Bill Lueders did.

Defamation in most places.... Just a tort, but still... enough to establish that you're a jackass, even before we get to your ideation about pleasuring the governor.

pm317 said...

This woman Bradley is not worthy to sit on your state's supreme court. She seems to have a lot of hangups and problems.

J said...

So much for evidentiary argument--

Add the other facts--like the video of Lord Prosser rushing the bench with his fist clenched and psychotic expression on his face, and his rude comments to Abr., to Kloppenberg, his own admission that he has made incautious remarks, Bradley and Crooks' testimony-- ..a pattern of behavior as the psych. people say.

And so much for your supposed feminist views, AA--taking the word of an aging, conservative bachelor judge over a schoolteacher and mom.

Ann Althouse said...

"Cherry picking the cops' report, Miss A."

Refer to my post where I summarize everything in the report. This post is about picking 2 similar things for the purpose of comparison, but the context of this blog includes very full and very fair coverage... unlike this comment of yours.

"Perhaps you should note that Bradley told Prosser to leave her office when he was screaming, which he has done on numerous times (allegedly)--and that P. used "Shirley" , upsetting CJ Abr. Or that Miss Bradley's a petite woman, and former educator who often uses her hands for emphasis. Or perhaps quote Crooks' testimony that he has witnessed Prosser shrieking and acting like a baby on numerous occasions."

Seems like both Bradley and Prosser have used angry voices and that there is a lot of nasty speech, some of it better modulated than other. The question of who has really stirring the insanity on this court the most over the years is not answerable by me.

"It's not about politics, but about whether Prosser assaulted Bradley--which looks fairly evident, from the reports."

Well, clearly, Bradley initiated the physical aggression, and that could be characterized as a crime if you wanted to go there. Prosser did the hands around the neck move, which is also bad, but he's the one with the self-defense angle. Which one would you prosecute if you could only prosecute one? Well, the special prosecutor said neither, so we don't know.

Where do you get the right to say what this is "about"? This is what dishonest people do: they draw a line around the scope of what we're supposed to look at, and they draw it right where it favors the people they want to help and hurts the people they want to hurt.

This kind of ugly unfairness is what motivates me to keep writing about this case. It's what Bradley herself did at the June 15th meeting where she threatened to go public.

And, by the way, who leaked the story to Bill Lueders in the constrained Bradley-favoring form? Was it Bradley herself? If it was, that was a worse offense -- though not a crime -- than anything that happened on June 13 that I have read about. That is, I think, the profound violation of judicial ethics and extremely damaging tort of defamation.

lemondog said...

--taking the word of an aging, conservative bachelor judge over a schoolteacher and mom.

...and apple pie.

garage mahal said...

Yeah, if you leave out the context of self-defense, as whoever leaked the story to Bill Lueders did.

Still no problem with the leak from Team Prosser that gave only his side of the story, which thankfully for him gave exactly the narrative he needed while this was all sorted out.

Sometimes, leaks are necessary.

J said...

I read the cop report.

The first thing I noted was Miss Bradley's petite size--5-3, 131 lbs, and Prosser's average, if not stocky size (5-9, 165 lbs) which the tea-tards had ignored for weeks, trying to make Bradley seem like some big Amazon dame, which she isn't. And also noted that...Prosser was shrieking, and Bradley told him to keep quiet (in keeping with other reports of his childish behavior),and when he didn't, she merely approached him, perhaps with a hand raised--for emphasis (as teachers often do). There was no attack on her part, and even if there was slight aggression, he's taller and stronger (and a male). But he does ...make a move towards her--probably violent--ie, hands around her neck. And also noted Crooks' comments that he has noted DP often acting loud and belligerently--psych. issues, looks like. Also supported by his actions toward CJ Abr.

Should have gone to the box, as they say (and may still, or result in disbarring per the commission)

MadisonMan said...

It's a big deal here in Wisconsin, where the prestige of our supreme court is shot to hell. I am a professor at the law school in this state, and the condition of the state supreme court matters a lot.

Did anyone -- besides lawyers -- really think the SC had prestige before this? You say it's shot to hell, but that's because you're a law professor (You, a Law Professor!) -- but I think the rest of the State didn't really hold the court in much esteem for a long time before this event.

Sofa King said...

I'm not your buddy, pal.

Ann Althouse said...

"And so much for your supposed feminist views, AA--taking the word of an aging, conservative bachelor judge over a schoolteacher and mom."

Ironically, your remark is misogynistic. Not to mention homophobic.

Amartel said...

Bradley does not appear to be emotionally or mentally qualified to be administering justice. Much too sensitive to be out and about in the world interacting with other people and obviously incapable of applying the same standards to others as she does to herself. Also, she appears to have a sneaky and vicious mean streak.

J said...

Neither, AA--not misogynist in the least (that would most likely be ...Lord Prosser himself). I would say a modicum of feminist solidarity would imply that you take Bradley's word (and she's quite a bit smaller than Prosser as well)

Also noted your curious allusion to Bradley's career as a teacher, at a "roman catholic" school. Perhaps...Bradley's connection to the...papists troubles you?? (and some of the catholic hating tea-bugs)--or even her teaching experience itself! (given the TP's opposition to teachers) Yeah that sounds plausible.

Jed said...

I went to a catholic school. When a teacher rushed at me with her fist raised, I knew I would be smacked. Same in the public schools I attended.

Sofa King said...

Neither, AA--not misogynist in the least (that would most likely be ...Lord Prosser himself). I would say a modicum of feminist solidarity would imply that you take Bradley's word (and she's quite a bit smaller than Prosser as well)


Lol @ "feminist solidarity." Jay is a feminazi who isn't actually a feminist.

J said...

non sequitur, once again,Sofa Queen-- but you sound like another teabagging macho man who has no problem with males abusing women (even if verbally--and many have testified as much re Prosser's behavior). So much for Honor.

Ann Althouse said...

The notion that women must band together in solidarity is patronizing. We are individuals, with the full range of human potential, including the potential to lie, distort, and pursue selfish interests.

And you're only asking for female solidarity as a means to an end. You don't really care about women's interests other than coopting them for the left.

J said...

and I suspect Sofa King and other annys here with brand new blogs are...HossRonius aka Raul, aka Byro ( aka Daisy of Digby), inventing names again-- since it's far too cowardly to actually link to a real site. maybe I put a call into AA server admin. we can always use a bit more evidence for your case, stalker.

J said...

No, you're mistaken AA.

In certain circumstances---like suspected instances of male on female abuse (ie Prosser vs Bradley)--something like fem. solidarity may be important.

Really, I think you're staging the facts/evidence to fit your political agenda (ie, that of the WI TP-GOP)--Bradley's against Walker/TP, so she must be guilty re Prosser. Bias, in a sense.

Metamorf said...

I'll just note that J gives every evidence of being a disturbed individual, and at various times can and does evince misogyny, homophobia, racism, and/or strange mother-fixations, among other symptoms. Arguing with him seems about as pointless as arguing with a paranoid schizophrenic.

J said...

Funny I'd say that about you, "metamorf"--then, Logic does tend to scare perps and snitches, who prefer lying and misrep to truth. You sound like another mansonite tweeker, or maybe just a mormon upset at people who don't care for the LDS or yr hero Romneytoid.

(another IP/MAC addy to trace, HossRon).

Carol_Herman said...

By the time you're reading this Justice Prosser WON! He won his re-election. And, he's been sworn in.

Surly Shirley Abrahamson discovered her mask was falling off ... by the time TUBBS enters the room to "get" a report. And, TUBBS decides he's not putting one word on paper!

Ann Walsh-Bradley has temper tantrum problems. Which she projects onto others.

BEHIND THE SCENES all of them are well aware of each other's personality "quirks."

What's the press up to? What's going on, now? Is someone trying to resuscitate Ann Walsh-Bradley? WHY? SHE DIDN'T GET CHOKED!

Next time around? Somebody's gonna do the Heimlich maneuver ... the next time they see her back ... and her arms pumping at someone else.

If she were Monica, Linda Tripp would tell her to "fear for her life!"

But you're in Wisconsin. What's the worst that can happen? She gets compared to cheese? Isn't cheese supposed to smell?

Scott M said...

Please take time to notice that the same person that wrote:

I would say a modicum of feminist solidarity would imply that you take Bradley's word (and she's quite a bit smaller than Prosser as well)

Also noted your curious allusion to Bradley's career as a teacher, at a "roman catholic" school. Perhaps...Bradley's connection to the...papists troubles you?? (and some of the catholic hating tea-bugs)--or even her teaching experience itself! (given the TP's opposition to teachers) Yeah that sounds plausible.


Also wrote:

What's that Lincoln, tweek trash Yr talking out yr big pussay? Yes, you izz, as per usual. YOu're the homos here--Log cabin style. Which is to say, Mitt Romneytoid style.

And:

Wrong again, Allen the glibertarian dumbass--then I suspect you like mormon-trash. Comedy part of yr problem, demon

The real demons are the WASP-zionist trash of Smurfhouse


Curious, that, no?

Sofa King said...

maybe I put a call into AA server admin. we can always use a bit more evidence for your case, stalker.

Indeed? I look forward to it.

P.S. I wouldn't normally feed the trolls, but since Althouse herself has been leaving them piles of corn...

J said...

Ah metamorf!

Ayn Randian glibertarian freak. That explains it--the lie/cheat/ rob/swindle as needed metamorf.

Even the authentic libertarian (rare) questions the power of... the Black Robe gang, doesn't it, Metabyatch. So DP's for the right. That doesn't excuse his behavior.

Carol_Herman said...

Ann, it would not have been SHOULDERS!

Prosser's main worry was stating clearly that he did not touch Bradley's TITS.

She may be short. She may be tall. Prosser may have even been trying to reach for her arms ... but when he "got there" ... he definitely was not laying hands on her tits.

As to her flying fists ... We don't know if she was going up and down from the elbows. Or like windshield wipers ... from side to side.

Bradley's definitely crazy.

But it may not cost her her job.

And, if Abrahamson ... wnose worn the grandma mask for ages ... hasn't fastened it back on ... I'd wonder how she lost her grip.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

---Do you Sofa Queen? So does the LA DA. Crawl back to yr fave white supremacist sites, joto.

--Yeah dissent of any sort tends to scare you eh, Scottie the LDS queer, like the rest of the perps here. Just be a good boy and follow what the Teabugs and Foxtards tell you to do, snitch

--You're crazy, Mr Carol and defending the Man (ie ProsserCo).

Sofa King said...

---Do you Sofa Queen? So does the LA DA. Crawl back to yr fave white supremacist sites, joto.


I am disinclined to aquiesce to your request; so, I'm perfectly fine right here.

J said...

Is that so??
(yo Digby, your Romney boy's now siding with the TP/GOP again).

Just the start, Raul/Hoss/Sofa Queen fraud

Carol_Herman said...

WHAT!

The "credential" to sit on Wisconsin's supreme court ... from Bradley is that she was a high school teacher !!!!

WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

At a Catholic High School no less? (So she never had to pass a teacher's exam, even?)

I'm at a loss for words.

Can I pick up a law certificate now?

I'll put it on my stationery.

There doesn't seem to be any need for qualifications.

Or am I missing something?

Where's Bradley's resume?

J said...

She has a law degree Mr Carol, but was a teacher before becoming a judge.

Reason's sort of a stretch for you obviously. Maybe stick to like....tricks for crack,puta

Carol_Herman said...

Can anyone go back and look up what Crooks read in the horoscopes that day?

Wouldn't it be relevant?

He'd always announce this. Maybe, there's something there that could apply?

He sure went home early!

Kathy said...

Justice Bradley is a classic bully - and no one who knows her would deny it. From Jonatahn Turley's blog in MARCH 2011:

Prosser insists that Abrahamson was working against him politically as well as other court conservatives. He said that he “probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted. . . . They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing.”

Bradley recounted the confrontation in an email: “In a fit of temper, you were screaming at the chief; calling her a ‘bitch,’ threatening her with ‘. . . I will destroy you’; and describing the means of destruction as a war against her ‘and it won’t be a ground war.’”

Bradley’s email led another justice to criticize her for airing the issue to a wider audience. Justice Patience Roggensack wrote to Bradley, stating

“You were trying to make David look bad in the eyes of others, as a person who uses language that we all find offensive – and I include David in that ‘we,’  . . .Do you think that copying others on your e-mail increased the collegiality of the court or decreased it?

You are a very active participant in the dysfunctional way we carry-on. (As am I.) You often goad other justices by pushing and pushing in conference in a way that is simply rude and completely nonproductive. That is what happened when David lost his cool. He is not a man who attacks others without provocation. Until you realize that you are an active part of the provocation, not much will change. Perhaps a third party will help you realize that you are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem.”

Carol_Herman said...

It's a funny thing "J" ... calling a woman Mr. Really doesn't cause any problems.

Kathy said...

Sorry to miss putting the source link for some smoking gun proof that Bradley was asked to seek help WAY BEFORE the alleged choking - clearly charging on a colleague incident that has made such a mockery of the Abrahamson Court:

Source: JSOnline found at ABA Journal.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/22/wisconsin-supreme-court-erupts-into-name-calling-and-finger-pointing/

sorry I don't know how to hyperlink links....

Carol_Herman said...

"J" ... If a person can't get a job IN THE LAW, after receiving a credential to practice ... I'd assume they STUNK at practice.

As to "teaching" in Catholic high schools go ... that's not like teaching within a system that has "benchmarks." Where you pass tests ... before you're put in front of kids!

I am so unimpressed now with Bradley ... This goes beyond her obvious mental health issues ...

This now goes straight to the fact that if she wasn't a judge ... she wouldn't find employment practicing law!

(You know, I also think ALL the real maneuvers now are taking place behind the scenes.)

J said...

Did you even read what you posted, Kathy?

Prosser admits to making incautious statements (goaded! poor baby), and also has numerous people (Judges Bradley and Abr) pointing out his hysterical behavior. Indeed, that report helps the Bradley cause (a small female, not a stocky male and ex jock like Prosser).

alan markus said...

Here's a little something to listen to while pondering the Prossor/Bradley Height/Weight differential. Play it loud.
You Don't Have to Call Me Darling, Darling; You Never Even Called Me By My Name

Carol_Herman said...

LOW ON COMPETENCE, BIG ON BULLYING ...

That's about the ratio of it!

Plus, I wonder what Crooks made of all the phone calls he and his office got; on the rumor he was gonna retire.

Too bad he said "no."

Oh, yeah. There IS truth to the statement that Shirley Abrahamson worked diligently at getting KLOPPENHOPPEN elected. Because, she was out there trying to find someone she could back against Prosser.

I don't think Kloppenhoppen came off the top of the barrel, either. I think she was scraped from below. And, she lost!

Plus, there were attempts to "bid her to the top" ... by having Milwaukee close at the end.

When votes already cast ... got put into the win column for Prosser.

But this little "wave" ... didn't knock grandma out ... as she was standing by the sea shore.

Good not to forget those little "details."

Cedarford said...

Althouse - "And, by the way, who leaked the story to Bill Lueders in the constrained Bradley-favoring form? Was it Bradley herself? If it was, that was a worse offense -- though not a crime -- than anything that happened on June 13 that I have read about. That is, I think, the profound violation of judicial ethics and extremely damaging tort of defamation."

================
1. This could have been left as a little internal scuffle - handled internally - no one the wiser. Instead, the leaker for the Leuders elevated it to a public lynching.
If Bradley was lying - well, it is unescapable that she damaged the reputation of the court, the legal profession, and the personal reputation of a sitting judge.

2. That cannot be ignored. The court, the Bar - has been impugned. A tort of defamation exists if Bradley was lying or by intemperate behavior in making this a media and public circus. That is why the Judiciary Committee has to delve into this.

3. The Gableman incident will be reviewed. It sounds like it is likely true, and a new round of interviews will be done of the Justices and staff on THAT incident when the Judiciary Committee meets. Another instance of Bradley as an aggressor in the past..hitting..what came of that incident? Is a pattern there? Did Abrahamson upbraid her seeing a Justice hit right in front of her as retaliation for saying "Shirley"?? Make her "seek counselling"? I doubt it.

4. The weight of the law rests on the respect the public is expected to have for the decisions of justices - which is rooted in the public confidence in the high knowledge, experience, temperment, and professionalism of the Judiciary. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is under a big cloud right now.

Carol_Herman said...

I dunno. Cbolt sez they will "punt."

Doesn't "punt" mean the ball moves very little? Sort'a like a quarterback ... instead of throwing the ball ... just doing a "fall to the ground with the ball tucked under him?"

Okay. No. I can't imagine 9 members of the Judiciary Committee all laying on the ground.

But you only need one.

And, what happens if there's a TIME OUT call? Does the clock stop?

Do people remember, today, what Shirley Abrahamson was doing ... trying to find somemone willing to run against Prosser?

Money was thrown at that!

Signs got printed.

You ever see a judge getting competition?

You know what I remember? After OJ's jurors came back and he was found not guilty ... ITO had to run. And, NOBODY came up to challenge ITO!

There's a club, there ... And, judges all join it.

It's more secret than the Masons!

Pragmatist said...

I say best two out of three, winner gets the inappropriate touching of their choice.

DKWalser said...

Some comment threads grant the reader to "ignore" particular commenters. Not to mention any names (or letters), but one of the commenters in this thread reminded me of why I think the ability to "ignore" would be a useful addition to this blog.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

Only one?

J said...

C4---read the reports closely, without political bias. The reasonable person will conclude that Prosser's an unhinged nutcase, and abuser. Doesn't matter that he makes decisions for "your side" at times.

Hey "DKWalser" (another phony name)--fuck off, mormon TP swine

TCB-n-a-Flash said...

Would love to hear Bradley's explanation as to why it was appropriate for her to slap another Justice on the back of the head. They should add the translation brackets like on the Road Runner under Bradley and Abrahamson's web pictures. One could be (dingus-batoneous) and the other (nuttus-bagoneous).

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

slap another Justice on the back of the head.

Well,it was just Lord Prosser shrieking as he usually does. No biggy.

Scott M said...

Facinating, J.

If anyone else would like to have a rambling, semi-sentient conversation with Jolly, along with a host of other interesting tidbits (not including his blog, which I hear Kevorkian was interested in before he went tits up), you can reach him here

jollyrogerx99@gmail.com

J said...

Wow, Im hurt Scottie the mormon queer. No proof its my email anyway


grazi for evidence, tho' LDS satanist

ndspinelli said...

"Prestige of the Supreme Court." That's funny..girly! Having lived in 7 different states in 3 time zones, it seems to me the "prestige" of many Supreme Courts is diminished whenever a light is shined on them. The legal profession has gone straight downhill in the last 3-4 decades, and when you wake up in the middle of the night, I think you know that.

There are honorable attorneys and judges, but you could lob mortar rounds into most courthouses and not hit one.

Scott M said...

No proof its my email anyway

Hysterical.

Joe said...

J said: "Lord Prosser rushing the bench with his fist clenched and psychotic expression on his face, and his rude comments to Abr., to Kloppenberg, his own admission that he has made incautious remarks, Bradley and Crooks' testimony-- ..a pattern of behavior as the psych. people say."

I don't know Prosser, but let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that he gets too excited in arguments and is something of an asshole. All accounts agree, I believe, that Bradley is the one who got physical first. She's a judge. Doesn't she have the verbal skills to deal with an asshole?

I don't know what he went for her neck instead of her shoulders. Her shoulders seem a more natural choice. But I wasn't there, and I am inclined to believe all this happened extremely quickly. I think the suddenness of the physical aspect of the confrontation entitles Prosser to the benefit of at least some doubt.

So where are we?:

1. We know there's a chance Prosser is an asshole.

2. We known Bradley is an asshole.

3. We know the chief justice does a poor job of insisting on the proper tone among the justices.

4. We know we'll never know all the facts with 100% certainty.

I say both Bradley and Prosser ought to step down out of common decency.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
garage mahal said...

1. We know there's a chance Prosser is an asshole.

2. We known Bradley is an asshole.


Prosser is the only one on the court that we know of that other justices thought he needed to be reported to court officers. Crooks said he and Bradley met with the court's HR officer, and with A. John Voelker in Feb, the director of the state courts, "because they felt there was an escalation" in Prosser’s aggression.

lemondog said...

Yr hysterical Scottie, LDS atheist satanist queer. Move back to Tel Aviv, pig

Will you be running for election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

Carol_Herman said...

Crooks is a sneak! He's had it in for Prosser for a very long time!

And, on the day of the "episode." Where 3 other justices met in Prosser's office, first ...

CROOKS WENT HOME!

Crook is a VIPER!

Yesterday, a rumor got floated that he was going to retire. (Probably the horoscope of the day told him not to.)

But, you bet. The Wisconsin Supreme Court SUFFERS from a problem. Which begins at the ballot box!

At least Kloppenhoppen didn't win a ten year seat!

And, you just never know if the Judiciary Committee is a "cleaning store." And, they'll take care of business "next thursday." But you have to have your claim ticket.

You can't tell me that the WI judges don't know they have a problem! And, it's not just SUMI, either.

(You know, there's a scene in Huckelberry Finn, where two scam artists ... The "duke" and the "king" ... set about fleecing audiences ...

Just ordinary folk in small towns. Who pay money to be entertained ...

And, finally? Through word-of-mouth ... they get tarred and feathered ...

Which means in time the very people you cheat ... can get together, again, and they can, in unison ... remove the bad actors.

In Huckleberry Finn, Twain said those two were bad actors.

Cbolt sez we'll see a "punt."

I think we'll see a cleaning store.

gutless said...

The lady justice does not belong in a serious job let alone on the state's highest court. At a minimum she should attend psychological counseling with Justice Prosser and the other justices watching behind one way glass. It' the Widener Law School cure.

Cedarford said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. Fabulous said...

The issue of relative size continues to crop up, and I am not comfortable that we have accurate information. According to J, from yesterday's Greta Van Susteren post:

“From the sheriff's report:

"We asked Justice Bradley if we could have her physical description
and she stated she was 5'3" and 131 lbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT JUSTICE DAVID PROSSER SAID: .....
Justice David T. Prosser Jr. Male white DOB 12/24/42 Height: 5'9"
Weight: 165 lbs

Book him.

8/30/11 5:25 PM "

So according to J, Justice Bradley is the source for her own physical size information included in the Sheriff’s report, although I can’t see that explicitly stated in the report. It seems reasonable though-would they ask to measure height and weight, or just take what she stated and put it into the report? Nowhere in the report does it state that the detectives weighed or measured the height of Justice Bradley. Based both upon other published accounts of her statements regarding this matter, as well as the entirely understandable tendency to state your height and weight in the most flattering light possible, I'm skeptical as to the veracity of this information.

In the same post's comments, Dustin links to a picture of both Justices Bradley and Prosser together, but they are sitting down. I had already looked out on the internet for pictures of the 2 together, but like the picture Dustin posted I was only able to find photos of them sitting down. In all the photos I saw of them sitting down, including the one on the WISC website showing them in court where they were seated next to each other, they appear to be of similar size. Having said that, I don’t think we can reasonably draw our own conclusions as to their relative size unless we can see a (relatively recent) photo of them standing next to or near each other, and where they are standing on the same level.

Does anyone have a link to a recent photo of the 2 justices standing near each other, in order that we can judge for ourselves their relative sizes? Note that the relative size should normally not excuse assault or similar aggressiveness. I’ve known plenty of smaller men and women who were quite able and willing to be aggressive towards or assault someone larger than they were.

(I also posted this on the "basketball" thread, but this thread seems to be getting more attention.)

Cedarford said...

Garbage - "Prosser is the only one on the court that we know of that other justices thought he needed to be reported to court officers. Crooks said he and Bradley met with the court's HR officer, and with A. John Voelker in Feb, the director of the state courts, "because they felt there was an escalation" in Prosser’s aggression."

====================
A litle cute that this running to HR happened right after Bradley smacked a fellow Justice in the head for calling the Chief Justice "Shirley", with horoscope doing Crooks a witness to it. I doubt they mentioned that when complaining about how "agressive" Prosser appeared to be.
Sounds like with that and the email released inside and outside the Court - Bradley was waging an aggressive campaign to embarass and intimidate her "foes" or people who said mean things about her dear friend Shirley..(just don't EVER call her Shirley).

Cedarford said...

Joe - I say both Bradley and Prosser ought to step down out of common decency.

===============
Don't forget Justice Gableman, who by your standards should resign out of common decency because he said the Chiefs 1st name..which compelled Bradley to smack him on the head.

Applying the "Standard School Administrators" discipline policy ...any party in any physical altercation is automatically at fault..doesn't work too good in the real world.

(It doesn't work too good in the schools either, if a parent involves a lawyer and the police upon hearing the school wishes to suspend their dughter attacked by 3 "troubled youth" for her lunch money and cell phone, as well as the 3 "troubled youth")

Jack said...

Question for AA. How do you refer to the Law School Dean in a small meeting? Dean XXX or by first name?

My experience in private practice is that all the lawyers are on a first name basis, but perhaps that isn't the case in older main line NYC firms.

Ann Althouse said...

"Question for AA. How do you refer to the Law School Dean in a small meeting? Dean XXX or by first name?

First name.

But it's all a matter of tradition. If judges on a court call the Chief "Chief," the newcomer should notice and follow that tradition... especially where, as in Wisconsin, the Chief is determined by length of service (and thus, largely, elder status). It was especially true, I would think, in the case of Gableman who had to know how painful it was to have displaced Butler. He should have been extra-respectful, just as a matter of normal social behavior. If he was treated frostily or nastily, I think he should have adopted a very formal distance. That would be my advice. That's what I would do.

Alex said...

I can't forget the unforgettable warmth of Justice Bradley's neck. Did I tell you that Prosser's hands felt warm on her neck? BTW - did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam?

Alex said...

Prosser is the only one on the court that we know of that other justices thought he needed to be reported to court officers.

Prosser is the only right-winger on a court filled with left-wingers. Of course they are all against him.

Carol_Herman said...

Well, Gabelman couldn't use "sir."

As to "Chief," I have my doubts it would make for a civil court atmosphere.

Heck, over at our DC supremes. When they go to "conference." It is only them! Nine chairs. And, the last one confirmed is the one who brings in the coffee and tea.

Then, I heard Ruth Bader Ginsberg always brings in freshly baked cookies.

Like my mom said: You get more with honey than you get with vinegar.

And, given that Ruth Bader Ginsberg has a very good relationship with Antonin Scalia ... You can see you don't hold grudges because of your legal views. They are put aside. And, people really do get along.

Shirley (grandma) Abrahamson has worked extremely hard to maintain a "front" ... or a public mask.

And, while this "choke hold" business took hold in the press ... I think she found ways to "float about it." Because she knew how TOXIC this was to her reputation!

Ann Walsh-Bradley is not so bright.

And, Crooks is a VIPER.

Margaret, the HR person ... has also shown herself adept at getting out of the way of this hoopla. Which turned what was supposed to happen ... where Prosser got "fired" ...

Into a place where the curtain that came down exposed backstage, instead.

If there was a do over rule? Abrahamson would have strapped Bradley into her seat ... And, then when the 4 justices came in ... She'd have said her opinion was ready to be delivered to the printers.

And, you'd have seen that the court accepted the legislature's way of doing business.

The UNION did not win!

And, Abrahamson will do her best to gag Bradley ... "next time."

Carol_Herman said...

... Ah, and in the background remains an even bigger secret.

(Because I had thought Justice Prosser went to the Judiciary Committee with a complaint.)

Who did?

Did the Judiciary Committee decide on their own to pick up this hot potato?

David said...

Where is the "regrettable touching" tag?????

You have just coined a fabulous phrase.

alan markus said...

Not sure what happened to my previous attempt to post this link, but here's something to listen to while thinking up your next comments. Play it loud:
You Don't Have to Call Me Darling, Darling..You Never Even Called Me By Name

Carol_Herman said...

Somebody had to complain, right off the bat, to the Judiciary Committee.

Prosser said it wasn't him.

Crooks wasn't there.

Roggensack said to Ann, "that's not like you."

So did Gabelman go to the Judiciary Committee ... to report he saw "someone" not behaving in a judical manner?

Gabelman is NOT on Bradley's side! He's already reported that back in 2008 Bradley swatted him in the head. Because he used Shirley's first name.

Bradley's story remains the weakest in just about every scenario.

And, there are lots of scenes out there now for the public to peruse.

I even think Bradley lost at this site, when Ann put the matter up to a vote. Not that what we think counts for points, or anything.

But what if there's some internal suggestion she should resign? If she sought legal counsel, what would be be advised to do?

Where, exactly, does the Wisconsin Supreme Court go, to get its reputation back? Doesn't Shirley have a vested interest in bringing "order back to the court?" If not, her? WHO?

Carol_Herman said...

Prosser told the truth! He said he felt the warmth of skin. Not cloth.

He's a judge who knows how to use words, carefully. And, he doesn't lie!

It counts for points that you can't fault him on his statement.

Would he do things differently?

Well ... Next time he's gonna be carrying around a lot of papers. He only puts them down when he goes to pee.

IF he had been carrying s stack of papers? He could have tossed them into the air. To see if "bopping Bradley could have shredded some."

Crooks and Bradley sure came off bad in the way this story came down the pike, anyway.

Joe said...

Cedarford said: "Applying the "Standard School Administrators" discipline policy ...any party in any physical altercation is automatically at fault..doesn't work too good in the real world."

I am no apologist for so-called zero-tolerance policies in public education. They too often lead to absurd results, to people losing sight of what it is that they have zero tolerance for.

But I'm not arguing for zero tolerance on the court, and the justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are not, despite appearances, children. As I said, Bradley is an asshole, which is another way of saying she woefully lacks judicial temperament. The same is probably the case with Prosser. It does not appear to me that he is as extreme a case as Bradley, but that's a pretty low standard.

Methadras said...

It's nice to see that Wisconsin has solved all of it's problems that this issue has become such an issue.

lemondog said...

You can call me....

But don't call me...

DKWalser said...

What do the relative sizes of the two justices have to do with the controversy? In a confrontation between to people, it's not always the larger who's the aggressor. Nor is it "unfair" for the larger to defend himself from the smaller. Nor is it improbable that the larger person would feel a desire to prevent the smaller individual from hitting him -- even if the smaller person lacked the ability to do any permanent harm. A man shouldn't be required to allow a women to slap him just because he's larger and stronger than she is. (The same is true when the genders and/or sizes are reversed.)

So, the fact Prosser might be larger than Bradley has no relevance to the matter.

Mr. Fabulous said...

DKW-I agree that it is not relevant to the assault (or non-assault), but it is being used by some as an accusation, so I want to KNOW. Not just take their word for it-I want to KNOW if the BS argument about size is not only not germane, but inaccurate.

DKWalser said...

The fact Prosser is reported to have lost his temper a time or two does not, in and of itself, make him unfit to serve on the court. Nor, for that matter, does the fact Bradley also lost her temper a time or two mean she's unfit to serve on the court. The record seems to indicate that the two justices lost their tempers occasionally rather than weekly.

I've worked closely with the small group of professionals in our office over the last decade. Most of us have become angry at one time or another during that time. Some, in the heat of anger, have used language and said things they later regretted. Such lapses, in and of themselves, didn't make these people unprofessional (though their conduct, at the times in question, was unprofessional). If such lapses were a weekly occurrence in our office, things would be different. But a handful of such out bursts, while regrettable, over a course of years, seems rather normal for most professional offices.

In the case of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, we might wish the justices to comport themselves to a higher standard, but we also need to realize that the justices are human beings. In this case, human beings who deservedly have a fairly high opinion of their ability to reach the "right" conclusion and who are dealing with significant issues. This makes it more likely, not less, that the humans involved will become angry.

Prosser shouldn't have lost his temper and called the Chief Justice a bitch. While I NEVER use such language myself, I'm in a very small minority. Dropping the "b-word" and the use of even stronger language has become all-too-normal in our society for us to get too upset about it. Bradley shouldn't have rushed at Prosser and shook her fist in his face. While such a physical confrontation is far less common than use of profanity, it's hardly an unusual situation.

What is unusual and what goes beyond the line is the airing of such dirty laundry publicly. What happens in a private office should remain private. Reporting such private matters to the press is (all but) universally considered unprofessional. That error is greatly compounded by the (evidently) slanted account that was given to the press.

Carol_Herman said...

You know, I don't live in Wisconsin. But I'm thrilled that David Prosser won, and Kloppenhoppen lost!

That's the PEOPLE who spoke.

And, the PEOPLE will get around to Bradley, Crooks, and Abrahamason ... when they show up next on ballots.

That's what democracy looks like.

As to the Judiciary Committee in Wisconsin ... There's the possibility they got their complaint on the Friday BEFORE this circus broke.

And, it it was Gabelman who filed the complaint ... INTO the record goes behaviors we may not even have seen exposed yet.

Sometimes, indeed, it takes a long time to get revenge. Best served cold.

Mark O said...

Oh Ann, you make my point. Reflexively, no man would ever consider the chest an option and the farther away the better. As your quote makes clear: "He doesn't mention the chest."

Honestly. If a man were to have done the same, a push in the chest is the perfect move. With a woman, it's just impossible. Again, as you mentioned, shoulders, head, throat or nothing. Why not push her chest? It's the easiest?

Far from undercutting my theory, you simply gave me more evidence on cross than I had adduced on direct.

Happens all the time.

Your witness.

Carol_Herman said...

Don't arms go up automatically when you're about to get hit?

Prosser had to get surprised. (Gableman, less so.)

And, this whole thing was over in an instant! The witness I'd like to question, now, is Gableman. Because if he's the one who filed the complaint to the Judiciary Committee ...

The complaint doesn't favor either Abrahamson. Or Bradley.

Comes 24 hours before this shows up in print.

And, what Prosser's statement says is that he felt her skin. (Obviously that's where her neck is.) And, not fabric. Because that's where her tits are.

Can you imagine what Bradley would have said instead of "choke hold?" If Prosser's defensiveness ended up on Bradley's tits?

(While in the complaint to the Judiciary Committee ... you bet ... besides the physical approach ... I bet the words "BET OUT OF MY OFFICE, BUDDY" ... also shows a lack of judicial temperament.

Punslinger said...

Over the span of a few years, Prosser has occasionally used intemperate language.

Over the span of a few posts, J has frequently used intemperate language.

J seems to be very angry.

JAL said...

It's probably already been said.

Justice Bradley has disqualifed herself.

She needs to resign or be -- is it -- impeached?

Karl said...

J punches out at 15:00 no matter what.

Citizen Action isn't paying overtime.

Meanwhile, C_H is pitching all 9 innings.

Kids these days are some lazy fucks.

Shawn L. said...

"Where is the "regrettable touching" tag?????

You have just coined a fabulous phrase"

I was about to make a similar comment.

This post needs a soundtrack...

"Sometimes when we touch, the honesty's too much..."

Strelnikov said...

This post reminds me why I disliked law school so much.