Althouse: "[D]o you think that a woman like Bradley, who seriously considered calling the cops because Prosser used a profanity about another justice..."

June 27, 2011

"[D]o you think that a woman like Bradley, who seriously considered calling the cops because Prosser used a profanity about another justice..."

"... would not call the cops if she was the victim of an unprovoked, physical assault in front of witnesses?"

Asks Darleen at Protein Wisdom, noting that Bradley is "now upping the ante by specifically alleging to the press that, Prosser put her in a 'choke hold.'"

I would truly like to know who made the decision to go public with this accusation. Was it one of the judges or someone lower down, with less awareness of the mess it would make, like a law clerk or summer intern?

332 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 332 of 332

Anonymous said...: BREAKING NEWS!

Yet another Democrat has been convicted of trying to sell a United States Senate seat.; 6/27/11, 2:26 PM
Lincolntf said...: @DaveW said...

I don't think a bunch of Judges behaved badly. I think one Judge (Bradley) flipped out and charged at Prosser.
Being Judges they endeavored to keep it in house, but gossip always finds a way. Once the leakage started, it's only natural that the leakers would tell a story that favored their side. Thus we got the "Prosser choked me!" garbage from the "Investigative Journalist". Having absolutely zero corroboration with named sources, he ran with it. Pretty much defines the term "hack".; 6/27/11, 2:29 PM
Bob said...: AlphaLiberal

It's despicable that right wingers side with a man physically fighting a woman. Can't wait for the new "Wife Beaters for Republicans" PAC to emerge.

June 13, 2011 Fred Clark calls a women to tell her about his running in the election to recall Senator Olson in the recall election. She responded with “Ya isn’t that a crime and hung up on Fred Clark. He did not know her answering machine was still running and he said
” I feel like calling calling her back and smack her around”.

The Democrats already have a women smacker.

“Don’t get smacked around, vote Olson.”; 6/27/11, 2:29 PM
Lincolntf said...: AL, you continue to lie and obfuscate. I like it, because anyone lurking or reading this later will see your mendacity.

Pretending again that you aren't a simple-minded fool...Do you believe that promises of death are always acceptable in the Capitol? Only when followed by apologies days later? The abuse of prostitutes with which this Democrat is charged don't bother you, I know, but why do you grubby Libs always hitch your wagons to the scummiest stars available?; 6/27/11, 2:36 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: In the heat of the argument, she got in his face, possibly with a finger in his chest or a fist in front of his face. He put out his hands to keep her away. She batted at them, or tried pushing him, he responded, and one or both of his hands touched her neck. Possibly more than once.

That would be a third version of events. However, in only one case do we have a Justice saying what happened. Prosser will not offer his version of events, letting some shill speak for him. Unless he is the unnamed source.

I guess we will have to see what the investigations tell us. I hope Prosser is not removed until we have a new Governor, anyway, so fine with me.; 6/27/11, 2:36 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Wisconsin sure could use a better breed of lefties.; 6/27/11, 2:38 PM
traditionalguy said...: Prosser seems to be enjoying this altercation like he has others. He needs to take a chill pill. Grumpy old men will run out of allies one day.; 6/27/11, 2:38 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Lincoln, really, relax. I granted your point after being reminded of the event. I said he should have apologized which, BTW, he did.

But you still continue with the shrill attacks with, really, no content once you strip away the venom and bile.

Relax. Take it easy.

Man, you guys are full of hatred.; 6/27/11, 2:38 PM
Calypso Facto said...: The Democrats already have a women smacker.

“Don’t get smacked around, vote Olson.”

Fred Clark also somehow "forgot" to pay his increased child support until he decided to run for Senate. Real champions of women, those Democrats.; 6/27/11, 2:39 PM
Scott M said...: Man, you guys are full of hatred.

You address one specific commenter and could have ended it there. Instead, you decide to include everyone in the "you guys", thus implicating everyone as hateful. There are a couple of sockpuppets on your side of the isle hereabouts that know no equal in the hate department. One of them can't even spell correctly long enough to get his vitriol out.

In other words, you guys are so full of hatred.; 6/27/11, 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: "I guess we will have to see what the investigations tell us. I hope Prosser is not removed until we have a new Governor, anyway, so fine with me."

But what about Justice Bradley, AlphaLiberal?

As you say now that we have a proper police investigation under way, what if that investigation demonstrates that Justice Bradley attacked Justice Prosser requiring him to properly defend himself?

Certainly then you would agree that she must resign from the court or be impeached, no?

We can't have liberal judges violently attacking other judges, can we Alpha?

Speak up, man.

Can't hear you.; 6/27/11, 2:44 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Wisconsin sure could use a better breed of lefties.

I don’t think the Left has changed in 40 years, Hoosier. What has changed is the relative strength of their position. Forty years ago they SEEMED “nicer” because they were almost universally in charge, of the Media, of the Grove of Academe, or the Elite Opinion. That has changed, and so, now that they can no longer win without trying, but must try, you begin to see the nice mask fall away.

It’s like I tell my friends, you discover how much you value Freedom when you meet someone who doesn’t agree with you. It’s easy to love Freedom when everyone around you agrees with you. Garage and Alpha and Bradley and Sumi and a host of WI Lefties are discovering that not that many people agree with them, and suddenly Freedom isn’t looking so good, but telling the other guy to STFU looks a lot better!; 6/27/11, 2:44 PM
Seeing Red said...: What should Prosser apologize for?

It's she said - he said at this point.

That's why an investigation.

Of course, he could do the "I'm sorry you're such a menopausal female who's off her meds" or some such thing.

He apologizes - he admits guilt.

For self-defense?

Why should he have to apologize for defending himself against a raging, rabid, unprofessional such as Bradley?; 6/27/11, 2:44 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: ..."Man, you guys are full of hatred...."

Hahahahaha! (Snort!) Hahahaha!

Now that was some funny shit there.; 6/27/11, 2:45 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Latest news is that Dane County Sheriff's Office is investigating at the request of Capitol police. Also, Wisconsin Judicial Commission is investigating.

I'm sure this will be manipulated to "prove" all manner of nonsense in the "minds" of the right wingers like Ann Althouse.

Bear in mind, in the previous case, Prosser was found to be guilty as charged (of verbal abuse and cussing out and threatening to "destroy" the Chief Justice).

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118310479.html; 6/27/11, 2:48 PM
Seeing Red said...: Recalls R coming, right?

The more this shit leaks, the more determined I'd become to vote R - IF I really didn't pay attn to all this.

Kind of "can U hear me now" moment. We voted, quit trying to overturn it by hook or crook.

A side is gonna be smacked, we just don't know which yet.

If Towanna Bradley felt that threatened, she should have reported the incident when it happened.

Good thing she now can CC in WI.; 6/27/11, 2:49 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Seeing Red:

What should Prosser apologize for? See the link I just now posted. He admits terrible behavior and then refuses to apologize and doubles down, basically saying "the bitch deserved it."; 6/27/11, 2:49 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "...I don’t think the Left has changed in 40 years, Hoosier..."

I think the core actually had some valid goals, suchvas workers rights, fair pay and whatnot. Now guys like garage and Cook just want to go full on Chavismo and turn us into another Cuba because someone somewhere has an extra $100 that they can nationalize to right some social injustice.; 6/27/11, 2:50 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I'm sure this will be manipulated to "prove" all manner of nonsense in the "minds" of the right wingers like Ann Althouse.

It seems to me the folks living in “Proving” land are you and Garage, from the start of the Walker Saga, to Wiener and on…you guys keep on doubling down. But if it comforts you to think, we’re the people living in the Dream World have at it.; 6/27/11, 2:50 PM
Brennan said...: This sucks. We're already hateful and I haven't even started with the hate-a-athon.; 6/27/11, 2:50 PM
Will said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/27/11, 2:51 PM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/27/11, 2:51 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "...Bear in mind, in the previous case, Prosser was found to be guilty as charged (of verbal abuse and cussing out and threatening to "destroy" the Chiefustice)...."

A capital offense to be sure. I hope you have a good grip on your pearls Alpha.; 6/27/11, 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: BREAKING NEWS!

Another corrupt Democrat Party federal judge has blocked yet another state immigration law, this time in Georgia.

Why are ONLY Democrat-appointed judges striking down our legally enacted and constitutional laws if justice is blind?; 6/27/11, 2:55 PM
Lincolntf said...: You lied, you pretend you didn't, you acknowledge that everything I say is true, but you persist on pretending that I'm the problem? What an intellectual fly-speck you are. When a man no longer values his own name, charcter or credibility, then he is no longer really a man. You're simply a tool, and a faulty one at that.
Was that too shrill for you, Sally?; 6/27/11, 2:55 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: You address one specific commenter and could have ended it there. Instead, you decide to include everyone in the "you guys", thus implicating everyone as hateful

I was thinking of the other right wing bile all over these pages. It's pretty obvious, actually.

Also, HoosierDaddy, NevadaBob, certainly, and others.

I know, many conservatives these days think a political debate consists of exchanges of insults. It doesn't, really. That's just how people lacking intelligence and wit debate.; 6/27/11, 2:58 PM
Drew said...: I am continuing to get the impression that the left will have its way by any means necessary. And anyone who they perceive as an impediment to their leftist utopia will be destroyed.; 6/27/11, 2:59 PM
mariner said...: Coketown,
Not until you put that period inside the quotation marks where it belongs.

Aww, c'mon.

You're not even going to make him say, "Pretty please?"

You're too easy.; 6/27/11, 3:00 PM
AllenS said...: Last time AlphaLib was around he had to leave in a hurry because he got his ass handed to him. Remember that, AL?; 6/27/11, 3:03 PM
Scott M said...: I know, many conservatives these days think a political debate consists of exchanges of insults. It doesn't, really. That's just how people lacking intelligence and wit debate.

What's truly pathetic is that you seem to have convinced yourself that this only flows in one direction.; 6/27/11, 3:03 PM
Brennan said...: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118310479

AlphaLiberal: This link doesn't work. Do you have a working URL?; 6/27/11, 3:05 PM
Sofa King said...: About the whole "pressing charges" thing: only the state can bring criminal charges against somebody. The victim does *not* have a veto over this decision. However, if the victim is the sole witness and source of evidence, and does not wish to cooperate with the prosecution, the state cannot make a credible case and the charges will be dropped. That is why the police ask - if the victim witness is not going to cooperate with a criminal prosecution, the state has no case and will not bother.; 6/27/11, 3:07 PM
virgil xenophon said...: Joe(TCJ)@2:44/

So very true. As Churchill once said: "It costs nothing to be polite to a man if you know you are going to kill him in the morning." The left was in a position to control the conversation for years, so why not all measured tones and smiles? Now, as you say, once thwarted and frustrated, the fangs are bared..; 6/27/11, 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: "... only the state can bring criminal charges against somebody."

This is a common but unfortunate misconception. In reality, any group of citizens can form a grand jury and indict lawbreakers.

Only the state can TRY a citizen, but the state does not solely control bringing charges against individuals.; 6/27/11, 3:10 PM
Calypso Facto said...: Thank you for clearing up the "pressing charges" thing, Sofa. That makes sense.

And let me belatedly join the others who have thanked you for clearly laying out the separation of powers argument that eventually prevailed when the Sumi decision went to the WI Supreme Court. Well done!; 6/27/11, 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: "I was thinking of the other right wing bile all over these pages."

Go fuck yourself, AlphaLiberal.

You're a name-calling liberal hack who works halfheartedly for your side and because of your lack of effort your side is losing the public opinion and public policy debates.

You actually HURT liberal causes because you're not trying real hard.

You should be ashamed of your piss-poor effort.; 6/27/11, 3:13 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

HUZZAH Althouse Hillbillies, 200-plus comment and nary, until now, a mention of PALIN…well done.; 6/27/11, 3:15 PM
Quilly_Mammoth said...: Bear in mind, in the previous case, Prosser was found to be guilty as charged (of verbal abuse and cussing out and threatening to "destroy" the Chief Justice).

What a strange world you live in where you make a statement then post a link which in no way supports that statement.

What body charged Prosser? When was the hearing? What was the punishment? The link you posted mentions none of this.; 6/27/11, 3:21 PM
James said...: Bear in mind, in the previous case, Prosser was found to be guilty as charged (of verbal abuse and cussing out and threatening to "destroy" the Chief Justice).

LMAO. In which venue was he charged and convicted?

It probably isn't sporting but I'd point out that the voting public had full knowledge of this incident in which you claim he was "Found to be guilty" and still re-elected him to another 10 year term.; 6/27/11, 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: It probably isn't sporting but I'd point out that the voting public had full knowledge of this incident in which you claim he was "Found to be guilty" and still re-elected him to another 10 year term.

In his defense, if by "found to be guilty" Alpha means "found to be AWESOME" and appropriately rewarded, then technically he's right.; 6/27/11, 3:30 PM
Dad29 said...: So much toil.

So much trouble.

All that's missing now

Is bubbles.; 6/27/11, 3:34 PM
TWM said...: Anyone notice how Alpha always comes out when he smells blood but then quickly disappears when it turns out to be ketchup?

Spew your nonsense while you can, Alpha, because there's a shelf-life on all your spins.; 6/27/11, 3:43 PM
Joanna said...: In his defense, if by "found to be guilty" Alpha means "found to be AWESOME" and appropriately rewarded, then technically he's right.

Today I tracked down a thought-to-be-gone-forever flavor of ice cream for my mother. She said I was totally "guilty".; 6/27/11, 3:44 PM
Alex said...: AL - thanks for pointing out that there is INDEED a police investigation of Prosser's chokehold. Heck, attempted murder charge would be too kind for that scum.; 6/27/11, 3:46 PM
Nomadic100 said...: I am now a retired person who lives near Appleton, WI. I grew up in Washington, D.C. and, while there, believed that the federal government was enlightened and virtuous.

As an adult, I moved far from D.C. and from that vantage point the federal government took on a far more malignant aspect.

In my mind, Madison now shares the appearance of malignancy vis-a-vis the rest of Wisconsin. The little parasitic utopia was shaken up by Governor Walker and the Legislature and is upset that the gravy train powered by gravy from elsewhere in the state is now threatened. Too bad!; 6/27/11, 3:47 PM
Alex said...: BTW 90% of Politico comments are "Prosser is a violent criminal".; 6/27/11, 3:49 PM
Alex said...: If it turns out to be true that Prosser choked an elderly woman, not only he loses his job but he goes to prison and the entire GOP is flushed down the tubes for good.

Garage is praying furiously!!!; 6/27/11, 3:50 PM
Methadras said...: Lifting the soiled bedsheets of Wisconsins judicial mess that has been smeared by their PEU's. You guys deserve the fapping you've been giving each other.; 6/27/11, 3:53 PM
janmaxwell said...: Looks like this is being taken seriously...good!

Today, at the request of the Wisconsin Capital Police Department, the Dane County Sheriff's Office opened an investigation into the June 13th incident involving an alleged altercation at the offices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The Dane County Sheriff's Office recognizes the significance and sensitive nature of this investigation. Beginning today, detectives will work diligently to conduct a thorough and timely investigation. Because this case is in the very early stages, no further information is available at this time.; 6/27/11, 3:54 PM
Alex said...: Think about it. The Dane County sheriff would not be investigating for no reason. Either Prosser did apply a chokehold, or Bradley is lying. Either way, let the gears of justice grind on.; 6/27/11, 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Contrary to some opinion here, Wisconsin hasn't been normal for a very long time. Until recently when Newsom took the reigns in San Fran, it and Madison vied for the lead in the batshitcrazy sweepstakes. Newsom made San Fran the clear front-runner, but Wisconsin is still right there with Michigan and Illinois in its moonbattery.; 6/27/11, 3:59 PM
Fred4Pres said...: All I know is I am laying off the cheese and brats for a while...I think something is off about them.; 6/27/11, 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: "Where is Prosser's apology?"

He has no intention of apologizing and if that bitch gets in his face again she'll get choked back twice as hard.

Got it punk?; 6/27/11, 4:03 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I was thinking of the other right wing bile all over these pages. It's pretty obvious, actually. Also, HoosierDaddy, NevadaBob, certainly, and others...."

Oh that's rich.; 6/27/11, 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh--and as for the charges here--remember the attempts by the left to cajole and later bully one of their own into lying about the missing ballot count from Waukesha County in order to make it appear improper. I'm sure this woman has been well-informed of the party's expectations and threatened with all kinds of flack if she doesn't endorse the left's characterization of this episode. Oh, and anybody who's worried about misogyny needs to examine the left's treatment of women who don't agree with it.; 6/27/11, 4:04 PM
Fred4Pres said...: It is nice to daydream of Blago flipping on his Democratic buddies, but I see Blago's health taking a sudden decline in the not so distant future.; 6/27/11, 4:07 PM
Methadras said...: I just want to know if she got a noogie. Anyone know?; 6/27/11, 4:07 PM
VanderDouchen said...: "The separate probes are being run by the Dane County Sheriff’s Office and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which oversees the state’s judicial ethics code. The sheriff’s investigation was launched Monday; the commission’s was authorized Friday and publicly acknowledged on Monday."

So it appears someone filed an action with Wisconsin Judicial Commission, and they authorized an investigation into it on Friday. Then, over the weekend we get an odd article on the incident explaining Bradley's side. Trying this thing in the court of public opinion before the fit hits the shan? Looks like extremely bad form for a supreme court justice to me.

WV: crast:

Somebody's career crast like a motorcycle on a hogh speed chase this weekend.; 6/27/11, 4:07 PM
David said...: If you scan the press reports--mostly wire service articles published by local papers--it's being widely reported as a Prosser attack on Bradley.; 6/27/11, 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: "Looks like this is being taken seriously...good! Today, at the request of the Wisconsin Capital Police Department, the Dane County Sheriff's Office opened an investigation."

In other words, a highly politicized case just got punted because the Capitol Police are incapable of investigating a simple battery.

Nobody wants to investigate this case.

Pretty soon, the Sheriff will punt this investigation to the Attorney General.

I'm not certain how this indicates things are now being taken seriously. Looks like the cockroaches are scurrying for the dark to me.; 6/27/11, 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: "If you scan the press reports--mostly wire service articles published by local papers--it's being widely reported as a Prosser attack on Bradley."

That is false.

It is being reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel as a Bradley attack on Prosser requiring him to have to defend himself.

The police must investigate this vicious attack on a sitting Supreme Court justice.; 6/27/11, 4:09 PM
WineSlob said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/27/11, 4:14 PM
WineSlob said...: There's No Way Prosser Could Strangle
Bradley with Her Throat at that Angle
With Her Head up Her Ass
No Hands Could Get Past
The Sphincterhold in Which Anne Was Entangled; 6/27/11, 4:19 PM
The Dude said...: The Supreme Smack Down! Now on Pay per view! Watch the giant woman pound the wee man into the ground! Watch the tiny man choke out the old woman! TAP OUT 2011! Only in Wisconsin!; 6/27/11, 4:21 PM
Hunter L. Cook said...: This thread is really hilarious to read now that the Dane County Sheriff's Office has confirmed that it opened an investigation on this last Friday, well before the story was publicized and well before all you guys used the lack of said investigation as evidence of Bradley's dishonesty. Are any of you willing to stand up and admit you were wrong?; 6/27/11, 4:27 PM
Brennan said...: Nobody wants to investigate this case.

Well, there is a recall election. recall these fools that won't investigate alleged crimes in their jurisdictions.; 6/27/11, 4:27 PM
The Dude said...: Cookie, the fact that there is an investigation has no bearing on Bradley's honesty or lack thereof. You are conflating two unrelated, or, at least at this time, unproven, facts.

And I admit that I was wrong - I seriously thought that leftists could not sink any lower. Thanks for proving me wrong.; 6/27/11, 4:30 PM
Seeing Red said...: What should Prosser apologize for? See the link I just now posted. He admits terrible behavior and then refuses to apologize and doubles down, basically saying "the bitch deserved it."

Considering she tried to play footsie w/the court ruling and delay, delay, delay

She probably did.

GASP - Maybe it's a PATTERN?

Especially if she was eyeballs to this incident & didn't report it immediately.

The old bat may not have to be destroyed, but retired?

Seems she doesn't run a tight ship.

Maybe she's too old to keep up w/the youngins?; 6/27/11, 4:31 PM
Brennan said...: Are any of you willing to stand up and admit you were wrong?

For asking for a police report?

No. That was right. It's still wrong that someone squeeled to the fetish freaks financed by George Soros and they can't be bothered to name sources.

Progresssives! INVESTIGATE. Tell no one.; 6/27/11, 4:32 PM
VanderDouchen said...: Hunter,

Admit you are wrong and that you can't read. That is not what it says. look up a few posts and there's an explanation of what has finally come to light.

Reading is fundamental. Don't be shy, admit you were wrong.

WV: capolden:

The justice was in her capolden and gown.; 6/27/11, 4:33 PM
Seeing Red said...: If you scan the press reports--mostly wire service articles published by local papers--it's being widely reported as a Prosser attack on Bradley.

I would hazard a guess that would be expected, especially after Weiner.; 6/27/11, 4:34 PM
Seeing Red said...: Psssst

The 50s woman should have kneed the old man in the groin.

But she didn't.

As to the timing, it's interesting.; 6/27/11, 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: nevadabob

"Where is Prosser's apology?"

He has no intention of apologizing and if that bitch gets in his face again she'll get choked back twice as hard.

Got it punk?"

Nevadabob,you are way over the top, now you are going to be Prosser's body guard and choke Bradley even harder if she gets in his face?? Psycho, hate women much?; 6/27/11, 4:38 PM
The Dude said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/27/11, 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "Psycho, hate women much?"

No, just hate cunts and Judge Bradley is a fucking cunt. Next time she tries to get into Judge Prosser's face I hope he fucking punches her in her trachea.

Put that cunt in her place.; 6/27/11, 4:43 PM
James said...: There's No Way Prosser Could Strangle
Bradley with Her Throat at that Angle
With Her Head up Her Ass
No Hands Could Get Past
The Sphincterhold in Which Anne Was Entangled

LOL; 6/27/11, 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: I think maybe Nevadabob is REALLY Justice Prosser in disguise.; 6/27/11, 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: "I think maybe Nevadabob is REALLY Justice Prosser in disguise."

What did Barack Obama teach us? Get in their faces. Punch them twice as hard.

Let's rock, motherfuckers! They get in your face, trachea punch them.

Twice as hard.; 6/27/11, 4:51 PM
Unknown said...: It's interesting that this went public. In Mississippi, the Judicial Performance Commission handles all complaint confidentially until they decide to report the complaint to the State Supreme Court. I remember when one judge took the existence of the complaint against him public before it was completed, JPC immediately turned him over to the Supremes for sanctions.

Of course, if a complainant takes a bar complaint public in MS, the complaint is dropped.; 6/27/11, 4:51 PM
James said...: This thread is really hilarious to read now that the Dane County Sheriff's Office has confirmed that it opened an investigation on this last Friday, well before the story was publicized and well before all you guys used the lack of said investigation as evidence of Bradley's dishonesty. Are any of you willing to stand up and admit you were wrong?

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Guess again when the Sherriff's investingation started.; 6/27/11, 4:52 PM
Steve Koch said...: It is great that there are a couple of investigations into this incident. If charges are pressed, it will be a clear indicator of who the police think is the guilty party. If no charges are pressed, then it will have been much ado about nothing.; 6/27/11, 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: "If charges are pressed, it will be a clear indicator of who the police think is the guilty party."

That's not relevant. The police are tasked with investigating crimes, not determining who the guilty parties are.

That's what juries are for.; 6/27/11, 4:57 PM
Lincolntf said...: Hunter, you simpleton, we've all seen Madison Justice before.
Every single time, it's the fuckwitted Govt. goons who are the ones breaking the law. Whether it's the skidbag Senators who abandoned their State, the grotesque Teachers who abandoned their students, or the pussy-boy "Policemen" who let the "protesters" run roughshod all over them, every single disgrace has come from the Left.; 6/27/11, 5:03 PM
flenser said...: The Dane County Sheriff's Office recognizes the significance and sensitive nature of this investigation. Beginning today, detectives will work diligently to conduct a thorough and timely investigation. Because this case is in the very early stages, no further information is available at this time.

There is no further information to be had. It's he said/she said.; 6/27/11, 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: BREAKING NEWS!

Out-of-control gay liberals begin smashing ATMs to create teller jobs per Barack Obama's orders.; 6/27/11, 5:16 PM
Faeroe said...: So, let's get back to the in chambers discussion that led to the much belabored interaction. The following is my created narrative of events - based on what has been published and with the scene and events created by me.

We know that the decision was published the following day. I understand (haven't read it) that the decision was unanimous in not supporting the trial court's analysis, but that three judges were in favor of taking more time to hone their opinions and four who felt it important to get it out given the importance of the case and the usurpation of power by the trial court.

Argument among the six justices reported to be in the chamber was on the pros and cons of delaying or publishing immediately. We understand that all previous supreme court decisions show that trial court had no basis for its ruling. In that sense, the decision was easy - reversal.

Four justices say print it tomorrow, two justices say wait while we hone. The substance of the decision isn't going to change - which is that the trial court had no authority to do what it did. Under those circumstances, not publishing becomes a political act, the very thing the Supreme Court is rightly castigating the trial court for doing.

Add on the semi-open past history of ugly disputes between the justices - they don't seem to like each other - and what we understand to have happened begins to make more sense.

Back to the scene: The justices are arguing over tomorrow or indefinite delay. The majority states tomorrow, the minority says delay. Again, knowing that the Court is playing in a field that all seven justices have said belongs exclusively to the legislature.

Majority, perhaps led by Prosser, argues that the decision should be published immediately and in the heat of the argument, uses strong language to buttress its point of view.

Bradley, in whose office the confab is taking place, is pissed. She doesn't dispute that the trial court got it wrong, but she and the other dissenters want more time to work on their opinions (do we have analysis of what they wanted to add that needed an indefinite delay?). The majority says that they are going to publish and if the minority can't block them since they have already submitted their dissents - nyeah, nyeah, nyeah.

Bradley orders Prosser out (I am taking my office and going home) and he refuses, stating that they are doing court work and all justices must be there and that he cannot be excluded. Bradley looks to the chief justice to order him out and Prosser says that he does not have any confidence in her leadership.

End reconstruction of scene.

At this point, whatever physical confrontation that did happen, happened.

Based on the foregoing, what seems the most reasonable explanation? Bradley's or that made by others regarding Bradley's initiation?; 6/27/11, 5:19 PM
Prosqtor said...: Really, many of these comments amaze me. We don't begin to know enough to reach any conclusions about what happened in the Justice's office.

Personally, I think it is very possible that Ms. Justice charged Mr. Justice and he put out his hands to stop her and then she, in her anger, said "You choked me!" This is the sort of thing that angry charging people accuse those they charge of- ask any police officer. However, it is also possible that she walked over to Mr. Justice and asked him to leave and he, in his anger, reached for her neck. People do a lot of really dumb things when they are angry- again, ask any cop.

Fortunately we have several adults who were apparently NOT very angry in the room and we will probably get the story, more or less, soon.

I predict that the prosecutor who finally gets the case will decide not to file charges against anyone because: 1. The witnesses will contradict each other. (Especially because the witnesses are a bunch of lawyers, heheheh.), and 2. From a criminal justice standpoint there was not much of a crime. Did anyone suffer any pain? Was anyone's breathing blocked? Was there provocation? Was there reasonable force used in self-defense? It is never going be be much of a case, except as a political show trial.

That being said, I want to admit to AL and GM that I am of the libertarian right and so far to the right of them that we can't see each other over the horizon. They may discount my views accordingly.; 6/27/11, 5:19 PM
Known Unknown said...: Of course, conservatives will defend anything done by one of their own, with no thought to values or principles.

Lott, Trent.; 6/27/11, 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: "We don't begin to know enough to reach any conclusions about what happened in the Justice's office."

Bullshit.

We have the eyewitness testimony of people who have already told the press that Judge Bradley attacked Judge Prosser and that in defending himself Judge Prosser had to touch her neck. But these witnesses confirm he did not choke her and certainly didn't initiate the attack.

Two witnesses IN THE ROOM at the time of the event confirmed to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that Judge Bradley was the aggressor and that Judge Processor was trying to protect himself from her attack.

It's high time that a proper police investigation occurs so that Judge Bradley can go ahead and get arrested for her crime and we can get on with giving her a fair trial.

She has rights.

And she should be read them.; 6/27/11, 5:24 PM
AllenS said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/27/11, 5:28 PM
Steve Koch said...: "If charges are pressed, it will be a clear indicator of who the police think is the guilty party."

NB:"That's not relevant. The police are tasked with investigating crimes, not determining who the guilty parties are. That's what juries are for."

The criminal investigation is going to largely determine whether this goes to court or not and who gets charged if it does go to court. That may not be relevant to you but it is relevant to a lot of people. The decision to prosecute (or not) will be big news.

BTW, didn't you indicate that there would no next step, that this would be swept under the rug?

It is tougher to sweep stories under the rug now that we have internet bloggers to compensate for our criminally stupid and corrupt journalists. Shouldn't we assume that the vast majority of MSM people claiming to be journalists are actually propagandists?; 6/27/11, 5:32 PM
Mike said...: I think Van Susteren had a point. The Chief Justice should be impeached for failing to maintain order in her judicial kindergarten.

I don't know--and Alpha Liberal and all you other hysterical types--both left and right--out there, I don't particularly care what happened. Unless one of them "the 61 year old female fist charger" or the "69 year old geezer choke artist" put the other one in the emergency room, this is an unseemly dustup best left resolved among the members of that unhappy court. Let's just say that I don't look for the two of them to concur on any future opinions.; 6/27/11, 5:40 PM
Jose_K said...: The saying goes...loose pieces end in California but it will need an update; 6/27/11, 5:44 PM
Rob said...: Bob, you put way too much faith in one press report.

Here is what you would want:
1. Detailed statements from every person in the room about what they saw. In addition, information about the relationships of each of these people to the other witnesses needs to be investigated. The location of each witness in the room needs to be determined, and I would want to see photographs and diagrams of the room to further consider the ability of each person to see what happened. In my experience the witnesses at the scene sometimes will state that something happened in such a way that you would infer that they viewed the action, only to find that they are stating a conclusion based upon a blocked view and/or what other witnesses told them.

In addition, you would want to determine if there was any physical evidence of the allegations, such as red marks, cuts, or bruising. In this case I doubt it very much.; 6/27/11, 5:57 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Well, from the words Loo-der flung out, we know Dame Bradley was standing. And, Justice Prosser remained seated, throughout.

This whole bit of theater will have the curtain come down on what would have happened if Justice Prosser had just stood up?

Would Dame Bradley then have quickly kicked him in his posterior, as well?

Why didn't she yell "groping" ... instead of "chocking?"

You know if Dame Bradley had been choking the last person on earth to give her the Heimlich maneuver would be Justice Prosser.

I also think Dame Bradley should claim Prosser is only 5'2" when he's sitting down. When, he unwinds to stand up he's 6'4" ...

This movie needs John Wayne.; 6/27/11, 6:03 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Tawanna Bradley. Love it.

wv: shelets: Shelets the boys choke her to heighten the experience...; 6/27/11, 6:11 PM
coketown said...: Maybe the fact that so many women in my writing group have been submitting romance fiction for workshop that my judgment has been colored, but my interpretation of events is as follows:

Prosser and Bradley have been sneaking away for romantic rendezvouses* for months.

During these trysts, the two roleplay as counter-ideological judges whose deep-seated animosity for one another is overcome only by the sexual tension so intense it's palpable.

During an actual meeting with other justices present, tempers flare and the divide between fantasy and reality becomes blurred, and in an intense moment of conflict Bradley approaches with fists raised, while Prosser does what he always does to cool the hot heart of this judicial vixen: cradles her neck and pulls her in for a torrid embrace.

BUT! They quickly compose themselves, and attempt to avoid talking about the scene for six days. But of course the gossip machine is already humming at the Wisconsin courthouse.

To quell the inquisitive voices, Bradley offhandedly says that Prosser attacked her.

The logical conclusion is that Bradley will take the stand and declare, "If loving Justice Prosser is a crime, then I'm guilty."

*apparently Firefox's spell-check knows the plural of "rendezvous"; 6/27/11, 6:11 PM
Cedarford said...: Crypto Jew - "Only the state may press charges."

Why bring the clumsy and inneffecient criminal justice system into this?
This was at best a scuffle. The real problems are either a Justice lying and bringing discredit to the Judiciary and legal profession, or two Justices engaged in unseemly behavior bringing discredit on the Judiciary and legal profession. Or both.

Consider the cops investigating and getting statements not as groundwork for the DA prosecuting the scuffle between aged lawyers...but other agencies. Who can refer to the cops investigation and taken statements of all the lawyers involved.

Then it can go to:

1. The Wisc Judicial Commission.
2. The Wisc Bar Association.
3. The State Legislature for either a requested Justice resignation or impeachment; 6/27/11, 6:49 PM
living1nbf3 said...: Watched Bret Baier earlier tonight. He puncher Prosser right in the kisser. What is amazing is, as a night time reader of the 'Net, I know more about what is going on in the world than that dumb$hit spouting the so called"right wing conspiracy" every night.

FOX is dead to me as of tonight. Will watch Beck until he is over, then will ditch FOX for food channel programs.; 6/27/11, 7:02 PM
Brian Brown said...: in the previous case, Prosser was found to be guilty as charged (of verbal abuse and cussing out and threatening to "destroy" the Chief Justice).

Really?

Which court found him guilty?; 6/27/11, 7:02 PM
Brian Brown said...: Of course, conservatives will defend anything done by one of their own, with no thought to values or principles.

Is that kind of like Bill Clinton lying under oath and suborning perjury?

Or is that kind of like Anthony Weiner who we were told was the victim of a prank?

Or is that link Ted Kennedy who murdered a woman?

Or is that kind of like Gerry Studds?; 6/27/11, 7:04 PM
Roy Rogers said...: Why didn't Justice Bradley file an Order of Protection against Justice Prosser?; 6/27/11, 7:04 PM
ken in tx said...: For a blog based on a law professor's posts, there is a lot of legal nonsense here. Every state is different. Except for Louisiana, which is based on the Napoleonic Code, each American state is based on English Common law, but each one interprets it differently. I have had the misfortune of having a Mississippi lawyer represent me in an Alabama court. He actually had to ask the Judge what was going on. They had called expert witnesses to testify how much I should pay for my ex-wife's BS. He had never heard of this before.; 6/27/11, 7:10 PM
Auntie Ann said...: Was searching for a picture of the two of them together. I found one, but they are both seated with one person in between. From the look of it they are about the same size. Scroll down this page to see it in context, or just click here. Prosser's right in the middle, and Bradley is to the left.; 6/27/11, 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: "Here is what you would want:"

Here is what I want: There were 6 Supreme Court Justices in the room who witnessed this attack.

Put every single one of them under oath and on a witness stand in front of a grand jury and let's let them testify what went on in that room.

And then let's prosecute whoever started this for assault.

A crime was committed and I strongly suspect it was committed by Judge Bradley. I believe she bum-rushed Judge Prosser in an angry tirade and tried to throw him out of her office and he had to defend himself against her aggressive attack.

But there's a simple solution to this problem. We have six of the best witnesses you can buy who were IN THE ROOM when Judge Bradley charged Judge Prosser.

Let's get them in the witness stand and under oath in front of a grand jury and let the chips fall where they may.; 6/27/11, 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Joanna is right:

The lack of a resulting police report leads me to believe that nothing really happened, beyond tantrums, flung fists/hands, and a major overreaction by someone who is overly sensitive to physical touch.

It sounds like much ado about nothing.

And Freeman Hunt was also right in the most epic comment of all time:

The first rule of Supreme Court Fight Club is: you do not talk about Supreme Court Fight Club.

Besides being funny, there is a large element of truth there. This incident should have been handled in-house. The SC shouldn't be airing their dirty laundry in public. Perhaps, as noted above, Ms. Abrahamson is a poor leader.; 6/27/11, 7:27 PM
Tom Hall said...: But the fun that could be had at any trial. Imagine raising, or ruling on, objections with a Supreme Court justice on the stand.

For that matter - assume an criminal case that goes to the Supreme Court on appeal. Who would hear it, with most of the justices as witnesses?

Wisconsin has never been so entertaining.; 6/27/11, 7:31 PM
David said...: This is going to be a he said-she said case with the usual inconclusiveness in such matters.

Yes, I realize that there were four witnesses, each of them not only lawyers but judges in the highest court in the state.

Do you expect their testimony to be conclusive? Well, if you do, you have not been paying attention to what has been going on in the state and in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Expect conflicting accounts. Expect accusations of lying. Then expect the Wisconsin Supreme Court to lose the final shreds of its last tattered bits of integrity and reputation for fairness.

Now it may not happen that way. It does not have to. But do you want to bet against this outcome?; 6/27/11, 7:42 PM
David said...: "Perhaps, as noted above, Ms. Abrahamson is a poor leader."

Perhaps?

She has presided over the destruction of the reputation of the highest court in the state. She will blame it on others, but she was the person best in position to change that outcome.; 6/27/11, 7:44 PM
JAL said...: Somewhere I read that Prosser is the one who filed the complaint with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission on Friday.

If that is true, please note that Justice Prosser has followed what appears to be the reasonable and correct way of dealing with what he must perceive as a problem in the Supreme Court.

Please also note that that is a very good reason why he is not yakking and making crazy statements all over the place.

Can we ever get out of Wisconsin?

Where is Sarah? On jury duty?

How about some of you learning to spell Michele Bachmann's name?

Where is Chip with some great food pictures?

Can't Meadehouse go cross country skiing one more time?

ANYTHING to turn off Madison.

S.O.R.E. L.O.S.E.R.S.

wv reelly
Really!; 6/27/11, 7:45 PM
Anonymous said...: "This is going to be a he said-she said case ... "

Bullshit.

It's not a "he-said, she said" case.

A "he-said, she-said" case is a case where one person has one story and the other person has a different story and they are the only two witnesses.

That is not the situation in this instance.

The situation here is that 6 fucking Supreme Court Justices were in the room at the moment of the attack.

These are eye-witnesses as to who charged whom. We don't have to wonder how this started, we have the best witnesses money can buy. It's not he-said, she-said. They all know who charged at whom.

Someone is lying to the press and the six Supreme Court justices inside that room know who moved at who first, who was the aggressor and who was passively defending himself.

All we have to do is get them under oath so they can't lie and before a grand jury where they are FORCED to testify and we'll quickly get to the truth and we can get on with the criminal trial of whichever judge attacked the other one.

That way, we can get on with the impeachment.; 6/27/11, 7:57 PM
vnjagvet said...: I have five daughters very close in age. When they were all very young, we did a lot of car traveling . On nearly every trip of more than an hour, from the back seat came the cry, "SHE TOUCHED ME". Usually a scuffle immediately ensued which somewhat distracted me from my primary duty of safely driving down the road.

When I read all of the versions of the Bradley Prosser story, including many described in these comments, they remind me of the childish behavior that I had to deal with long ago.

I understood the dynamics of these tussles at the time, but my kids were younger than 10 years old then. I can't understand how sixty somethings in the most prestigious judicial position a state can bestow can get to the point of this pitifully immature behavior.

As far as I am concerned, both of these Justices need to get a permanent time out, and let more emotionally mature jurists take over.; 6/27/11, 7:58 PM
Fen said...: Of course, conservatives will defend anything done by one of their own, with no thought to values or principles.

Liar. If anything, conservatives are too quick to throw their own leaders under the bus. I remember calling for Foley to "be taken out back and shot"

The problem here is that lefty liars like Garage and Alpha keep coming back with false assertions and links that don't say what the claim. And they have no shame. They'll lose all credibility on one topic and be back the next week posting more lies without missing a beat.; 6/27/11, 7:59 PM
Fen said...: I have five daughters very close in age. When they were all very young, we did a lot of car traveling . On nearly every trip of more than an hour, from the back seat came the cry, "SHE TOUCHED ME". Usually a scuffle immediately ensued which somewhat distracted me from my primary duty of safely driving down the road.

As far as I am concerned, both of these Justices need to get a permanent time out, and let more emotionally mature jurists take over.

I really hate that approach. Your eldest daughter attacks your youngest without provocation. Your youngest throws her hands up to protect herself and inadvertently scratches your eldest (who rushed into it during her attack).

And you blame them both equally? Thats total bullshit.; 6/27/11, 8:02 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Coketown:

The only way Prosser pulls at Bradley's neck, (in your scenario), is that if he wanted to have 69 performed to an audience.

Otherwise, none of the "performers" in this tale have any role whatsoever.

Considering they have to "sit poised" ... they whole lot of them could be deaf, dumb, and blind.

But there's a story here!

You can tell it beats out Alito's "gasping" at straws and violence.

So, I'll assume that this morning, when Bradley awoke, she was stunned that her performance, as reported by Loo-der, now has her close to impeachment.

Not yet impeached.

And, there's till Greta' saying on Fox. On TV. That Shirley Abrahamson can't keep her "kindergarten justices" under control.

I don't know about you. But that had to smart.

Because there's fear, now ... as palpable as when Kloppenhoppen's victory speech broke down ...

You've got the Bar in Wisconsin poking in.

And, you've got the prosecutor swearing he's "investigating."

What's to investigate, if everyone in the room had stayed seated?

Can time bury this story?

Can Ann Althouse swing in with another caption ...

So we can keep on talking about it?

Weiner's putz went through the mill for 3 weeks ... while in a stunning rebuke of the usual "change of subject" for the media ...

This story still holds attention.

If Dame Bradley wasn't "choked," she's choking now!

You know, of course.

Dame Bradley was standing up. She's tall. And, Prosser who is a foot shorter than her, was sitting down.

When the investigation is completed ... we're gonna know how he got his arms up so high.

Is he a chimpanzee?

Does he have longer arms than most people his height?

Is there any "certitude" on how this story ends?; 6/27/11, 8:03 PM
Irene said...: Greta Van Susteren now thinks all three justices should go.

Until 1978, Wisconsin had a mandatory retirement of age 70 for judges and justices. Abrahamson will be 78 in December.; 6/27/11, 8:14 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Easy for Greta to say.

She just says things for ratings.

While reading all the other posts, I learned that PROSSER is the guy who went to the Bar and filed a complaint.

I guess when Loo-der called him ... Prosser decided he should contact the Wisconsin Bar.

And, now this story has traveled up to a whole other level.

Will the Wisconsin Supreme Court ever get back its dignity?

Will enough people understand that Prosser is the one who got attacked?

At first, he got attacked because he was a candidate running for office. Yeah. A judicial one.

But American politics allows for all sorts of dirty tricks.

Then, Prosser won.

But Kloppenhoppen, who lost by 7000 votes, put taxpayer money on the line. To challenge the count.

And, we haven't even arrived at August 1st.; 6/27/11, 8:30 PM
vnjagvet said...: And you blame them both equally? Thats total bullshit.

Maybe it is. But here's my perspective:

In 45 years of law practice, I came in contact with many aggressive lawyers some of whom were big time assholes. I am sure some of them put me in the latter category. Heated, nasty and profane words were not uncommon with some opponents or occasionally even with partners.

I have never seen a physical altercation involving any of them.

To me there is no excuse for physical confrontation among lawyers. That goes double for judges and triple for Justices.

From what I've seen so far, Prosser was much less at fault than Bradley. I still think both should go, though I suspect I am in the minority.; 6/27/11, 8:42 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Prosser's not stupid.

Most people following this story are very aware that Prosser is being attacked by the left, where Soros' money flows like crazy ...

And, if Prosser is pushed off the Supreme Court, the left wins. The old and incompetent Shirley Abrahamson can retire.

No. You're not dealing with a car full of children.

You're dealing with a very corrosive left, with their knives out.

Greta? A whore for ratings.

Thank goodness I don't own a TV.

The Internet, on the other hand, is what Soros and his camp followers, can't defeat.

In Prosser's competitive race, he finally got Kloppenhoppen to fail.

I think he keeps on fighting.

Like a gentlemen.

Like a good judge.

He's got the temperament to win.

There was no "choke-hold."

There was, however, a shrieking insane moonbat lunging at him.

Perhaps, we should be grateful that Kloppenhoppen didn't lunge, as well?

These people keep giving us cliffhangers.; 6/27/11, 8:51 PM
bagoh20 said...: Madison has jumped the shark.; 6/27/11, 8:52 PM
Pat Bay said...: 1. If Prosser had choked her, it would have left marks. Bradley could have been examined by a doctor, too, to check for further damage. But she didn't.

2. AlphaLib & others seem to be pigeonholing this incident into a he said / she said story, using the usual cliches. But there were wtinesses, and whether Prosser has issued much of a statement or not yet, having multiple SC Justices exonerating you with their own eyewitness testimony, that's pretty solid stuff.

3. Dunno Tubbs, but if it were me, I'd investigate this one myself too, and not send a subordinate.

4. I suspect - this last part's surmisal - that Bradley lost her temper; she rushed at Prosser who put up his hands and held her off by the collarbones cuz otherwise he'd have had to touch her chest; she tried the prima donna act, saying she'd been choked; another justice helpfully nipped that little act in the bud, or so one might have thought at the time; one of the libs in the room later told a partisan version to a subordinate who then leaked it to a friendly reporter; the rest you know.; 6/27/11, 8:57 PM
Erik Robert Nelson said...: "I suspect - this last part's surmisal - that Bradley lost her temper..."

This seems like the most reasonable description of what likely happened. We have witnesses to what happened. It's not "he said/she said." There should be no real problem with getting a good idea of what occurred in the room. Given what we know about what they were arguing over, it seems likely that Bradley rushed Prosser. Yes, they're all acting like children and it's ridiculous. Set it aside. It doesn't seem reasonable (despite past accusations of a temper) that Prosser would have behaved as AlphaLiberal and Garage seem to suggest.; 6/27/11, 9:02 PM
Pat Bay said...: Prosser was on the winning side so why lose his temper? Bradley was on the losing side, tho; this makes it more understandable; whether it's forgivable or not will be a matter of personal opinion. I do note that Prosser was apparently willing to forgive in that he made no mention of it publicly till it came out from the other side.

Bradleys's subsequent accusations are not, however, a matter of losing one's temper momentarily; they are much more serious and were made, however they turn out, in a most considered manner.
noutabsc; 6/27/11, 9:11 PM
Fen said...: To me there is no excuse for physical confrontation among lawyers. That goes double for judges and triple for Justices.

From what I've seen so far, Prosser was much less at fault than Bradley. I still think both should go

So, just to be clear - if I attack you, and in an act of self-defense you make physical contact with me, you should be disbarred?

Thats insane.

Why are credentialed folk so stupid?; 6/27/11, 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: So, just to be clear - if I attack you, and in an act of self-defense you make physical contact with me, you should be disbarred? That's insane."

Exactly. What's happening here is that the liberals are seeing that their little power play to try to get Judge Prosser removed on 10-day-old fake assault charges is now backfiring badly on Judge Bradley.

She's going to get put in a perjury trap.

Now that the facts are coming out, and it is revealed that Judge Bradley attacked Judge Prosser trying to throw him out of her office, the oh-so-wise liberals now want to say "oh, this is just he-said, she-said" or that "both of them need to go."

That's bullshit.

Judge Prosser has filed an official complaint with the bar association and now the Sheriff is investigating Judge Bradley's attack of Judge Prosser. Charges should be forthcoming because a crime has been committed.

It's not BOTH of them's fault. There is no excuse for a Supreme Court Justice to attempt to throw someone out of an office that belongs to the PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN.

Judge Bradley needs to be reminded that it's not her fucking office. That office belongs to US. The law does not authorize her to physically assault someone trying to throw them out of OUR OFFICE that WE PAY FOR. It's not her fucking office.

The aggressor is going to face the law and should pay the consequences. The person defending themselves is entitled to do so and should suffer no professional consequences.; 6/27/11, 9:55 PM
vnjagvet said...: Insane is a bit strong, Fen.

If the evidence bears out that Bradley actually attacked Prosser and he merely defended himself, I agree with you that Prosser should not go. I hope that the evidence is that clear cut, especially because of the BS that Prosser had to endure during the Klopper caper. I fear though that the evidence will not be clear cut in which case IMO neither will survive.

I hate that. It is unfair. I hope I am wrong. But I am afraid that will be the way it turns out.; 6/27/11, 10:49 PM
MikeinAppalachia said...: Channel-surfing this evening and caught the last minute or so of something on MSNBC. Host was interviewing what appeared to be two Wisconsin state senators. Didn't catch their names-a black woman and white male, both ID'd as democrats .
At the end of the segment, the male siad something to the effect that if the decision was rendered under physical threat, then it should be overturned.
Was this allegation just a ploy to delay from the start?; 6/28/11, 12:30 AM
Roger J. said...: The thread seems to have petered out--probably a good thing. I would only echo Joe's sentiment above: now we can have a 300 plus thread without mention of Sarah Palin or Global Warming--Ahhh-progress on the internet.

My prediction: nothing will happen when the sturm und drang subsides--The damage has been done to the Wisconsin judiciary, and it will be a he-she said kerfluffle.

Except for the Packers and AllenS, Wisconsin has nothing.; 6/28/11, 6:38 AM
dennisj42003 said...: It may not be the best for Wisconsin's image, but I think it is good that Wisconsin taxpayers know what is going on. Seems to me that no one would make such an accusation if it weren't true, seeing that he/she could lose their job and credibility if the allegation were proven false.; 6/28/11, 7:52 AM
Fen said...: Seems to me that no one would make such an accusation if it weren't true, seeing that he/she could lose their job and credibility if the allegation were proven false.

False. Alpha and Garage make allegations that are proven false here every day. You think they care what it does to their credibility?; 6/28/11, 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Anatomy of a Democrat Hate Crime:

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute: "According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away."

"During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling."

The other justices balked, wondering whether they even had the authority to order Prosser into any type of counseling. Some thought it would be “demeaning” to Prosser to have to go to counseling when he had done nothing wrong. In the end, Bradley realized she didn’t have enough justices on her side and no vote was taken.

To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

"... sources unanimously believed that it was Shirley Abrahamson who has been the impetus behind the story, managing the press operation from behind the scenes. Justices had been working together regularly since the incident without any signs of rancor until Abrahamson decided to make this an issue, sources believe."

As they say, read the whole thing here.; 6/28/11, 11:27 AM
Hardik said...: Very nice and informative blog. To know more about how to[url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.coninxksjad.upayhjjad&pli=1] buy crypto app[/url] please visit us.; 2/13/23, 1:28 AM