September 1, 2011

"'I cannot imagine [Justice Bradley] hitting [Justice Gableman] in anger because he called Justice Abrahamson 'Shirley' — because everybody calls her Shirley'... even the custodial staff."

So said former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske, quoted in a Capital Times article called "Justices dispute Gableman account of second altercation involving Bradley."

Is that so? Everyone calls her "Shirley" — not "Chief"? Even the custodians?

ADDED: But I do not want to impugn Geske's credibility. She said it. I presume it's true. Court personnel of all kinds: Have no qualms about calling the Chief Justice "Shirley." Like you always do.

 UPDATE: Justice Michael Gableman issues a statement relating to the date of the alleged hitting:
During my interview with the officers, I was uncertain as to whether Justice Bradley struck me on September 18, 2008, or September 18, 2009. I knew it was September 18 because that happens to be my birthday. Court records indicate that the seven Justices did, in fact, meet in closed conference on September 18, 2009. In any event, the incident happened exactly as I related it to the officers and as it was set forth in the report. While Justice Bradley might not be able to recall it, I certainly do. 
Does anyone else who was there remember it? 


Tim said...

Come on, someone has to say it: "And stop calling me Shirley!"

virgil xenophon said...

WHAT??? Even MORE!!!??? Is this affair the never-ending song, or what?

chickenlittle said...

Not everyone is so imperious as to insist on titles and last names only--especially from the lesser classes.

Paddy O said...

It's not justice Abrahamson who is at the center of all the chaos.

It's not at all unknown for a follower/syncophant to be more sensitive to supposed slights against their leader and react strongly against them, as they are preserving their own sense of being close to power.

traditionalguy said...

Can she imagine that Bradley thought the new man, Gableman, was the janitor?

This crap can't go on forever.

Wisconsin needs Lie detectors run on them all every time another speculation is leaked through the press.

They can be placebo lie detectors. Their value would be to tell each one that he/she has failed the test and better shut up.

EDH said...

Don't call me Shirley?

Is that so? Everyone calls her "Shirley" — not "Chief"?

Perry White: Don't call me chief!

FedkaTheConvict said...

Gableman is hated by the court's liberals because of the campaign he ran to defeat Louis "Loophole" Butler.
I remember the controversy ginned up to force him to recuse himself from the ethics inquiry over the ads he ran during his campaign.

So its not inconceivable that Justice Walsh Bradley struck him. Justice Geske wasn't there so she's simply speculating.

Scott M said...

"And stop calling me Shirley!"

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue."

"Let's get some pictures, boys."

"And Leon's getting laaaaarger."

Oxbay said...

There is one aspect of these two incidents that Bradley was involved in that hasn't been mentioned and I find strange. Both times Bradley was supposedly coming to the "defense" of Shirley Abrahamson. Both times Shirley was standing right there perfectly capable of defending herself. In either case we have not heard Shirley telling Bradley to back off. That Shirley could fight her own battles. This is weird.

halflight said...

You must know someone who appears before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Test the assertion. Next time the Chief Justice asks a question during oral argument, the attorney should begin his or her response with:

"Well, Shirley, my answer to your question is ______________"

Of course, said attorney should have a clear schedule for a couple of days afterward to serve a contempt of court sentence.

Mark O said...

There must be a certain lilting inflection that pisses her off. Yoo, hoo, Shirley.

garage mahal said...

Asked to respond to the allegation, Bradley said in an email to the Wisconsin State Journal that "Justice Gableman recounts an event that never happened on a date that, according to my records, it could not have occurred. "And Abrahamson said that, according to her records, "no meeting, conference or oral argument of the court occurred on September 18, 2008, or on any day that week." She said she asked Bradley and Crooks to check their records, which also show no meetings that week. And, she said, Justice Patience Roggensack earlier requested that the court not schedule anything between Sept. 15 and Sept. 29 that year.


ndspinelli said...

Who said soap operas are dying. It seems like it's mostly women playing the roles of this soap opera, w/ a couple evil men, and it's mostly women watching intently. Just like the women who watch Dancing With The Stars.

This is why we men still own most everything in the world.

MadisonMan said...

Doesn't someone call her

Shirley Shirley Bo Birley Banana Fanna Fo Firley, Fe Fo Mo Mirley...Shirley!!! ?

MadisonMan said...

Fie on that Fo

J said...

Additional evidence in support of Miss Bradley (and in support of those {including most of the WI SC} who realize Prosser has psychological issues, evidenced by his treatment of CJ Abr.).

garage mahal said...

The ethically challenged Gableman is the only justice that told detectives that Prosser's hands never touched Bradley's neck, contradicting even Prosser.

Must be a west sider.

J said...

well, that's a lib-rall neck he had his hands round, garag. So no biggy to the teabugs

Note the cops included "liberal judge" and "conservative judge"in the reports as well--weird--possible bias.

ndspinelli said...

"I'm shocked, shocked to know there's gambling going on here!"
Captain Renault in Casablanca.

This is what is exasperating me. Having worked in the legal profession, w/o being an attorney, I am incredulous that someone who purportedly is wired into the legal profession finds this "shocking." The profession has an inordinate amount of pompous, sanctimonious, buffoons. I am not being at all hyperbolic when I say this is all quite consistent w/ my observations over 4 decades. Ask any legal secretary, paralegal, investigator, etc. if they find this whole soap opera surprising and they will give you a quick, "No, I don't find it one bit surprising."

BarrySanders20 said...

Gableman: "Nice Beaver!"

Shirley: "Thank you. I just had it stuffed."

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Chief seems like a really nice gal.

I prefer to be called "Oh Great King Who KIndly Provides Our Daily Detritus," by the custodial staff (or as I call them, "Lowly Loafer Licking Losers.")

Different strokes for different folks.

Maguro said...

I find it interesting that Geske was so specific. She could have said "I cannot imagine Justice Bradley hitting Justice Gabelman because Ann is not that type of person", but chose not to.

edutcher said...

Maybe Shirley is just one of those first-name people, while Bradley, who studied law under Torquemada, insists on formality.

Smart: Don't tell me Siegfried is right behind us.

99: Max, Siegfried's right behind us.

Smart: I asked you not to tell me that.

J said...

Additional evidence in support of Miss Bradley (and in support of those {including most of the WI SC} who realize Prosser has psychological issues, evidenced by his treatment of CJ Abr.).

Pot, kettle....

AlphaLiberal said...

"But I do not want to impugn Geske's credibility."

Too late. You've already implied sghe lied to the papers.

Gableman comes off as a compete liar in this, dragging Ziegler along.

"no meeting, conference or oral argument of the court occurred on September 18, 2008, or on any day that week."

Read more:


Gableman also insisted to the detectives that Prosser never put his hands on Bradley's neck. But even Prosser acknowledged doing that, calling it a "total reflex."

geokstr said...

Gableman could have gotten the date wrong. The memory is the first thing to go as you ascend in years (thank the FSM).

If it was a meeting of the full court, then there should be other sitting justices who remember the incident (besides the CJ and Crooks), as such viscious, unprovoked brutality would tend to stand out as a tad unusual for a bunch of staid geezer judges, non?

Let's see if some of them can check their records for meetings around that date. it could have been an impromptu unscheduled meeting as well, and might not show up on official schedules. That is how this incident happened where the evil Rethuglican knocked down the innocent Bradley with a roundhouse left to the head and a leg sweep, then had to be forced to break the MMA barenaked chokehold before she even had a chance to tap out.

Seems Bradley now has a documented history of histrionoics and attempts at intimidation of her "buddies" when Chief Granny gets dissed. Time for anger management therapy and a psych eval.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

The only fair way to resolve this is to have Walker name replacements for the entire court.

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

For Prosser, it's beyond time for anger management and a psych eval. It's 'Zine time (and for Alt-tards)--and while sedated, the mean lady-judges couldn't "goad" him (his own admission), and he wouldn't be able to strangle the Goaders.

MadisonMan said...

garage, you're just mad because you can't drive unimpeded down Willy Street. But here on the west side, Old University is back open for business!

William said...

I think it's possible that this is all some kind of elaborate put on. The Justices will call a joint press conference an declare that "We were just messing with you." Then they'll all give each other high fives and laugh like crazy....They have reached a level of self indulgence and self parody that Charley Sheen can only dream of--and they did it without sex and drugs. Has there ever been such a great scandal about such inconsequential banalities? This is like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm scored by Verdi or maybe even Wagner. The more inconsequential the matter, the more soaring the aria.

MadisonMan said...

and if Willy Street *is* open, let me know. I would love to go to Batch Bakehouse. That place rules.

caseym54 said...

So, do attorneys call her "Shirley" during oral arguments? (Not counting sentences that start with "Surely" of course).

jr565 said...

Surely, you can't be serious?

Mark O said...

So, how would you like to have a significant, serious matter in your life decided by these fools?

garage mahal said...

Madison Man
Willy is open westbound toward the Cap, if you know your way around you can still get to where you want to go. And the stores you could use the business! Also, sorry for biting your head off yesterday, I'm completely unbearable at the moment, you'll just have to bear with for now.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Now I know why there's a circus museum in Wisconsin. Your state is the natural habitat for clowns, from the stret protests and the tent cities all the way to your highest court!

AlphaLiberal said...

Veteran Wisconsin journo asks,
Is Ann Althouse "Evil"?

"But if her column calling reporter Bill Lueders “evil” is any indication of her talent as a blogger, let’s just say she’s long on posturing and gasbagging, and short on substance."

Heh. Good one.

"The answer to Althouse’s two great challenges, in short, is stunningly obvious, yet she goes on for 29 excruciating graphs in a lame attempt to play Perry Mason and pronounce Lueders guilty, while titillating us with the question of whether Lueders is stupid or evil or both. The answer is none of the above. The only thing stupid here (I won’t say evil) is Althouse’s column. "


"But the biggest reason Lueders wouldn’t have left out the fist of fury version of the story is because it is so juicy and would make a great scoop even greater. And because he would know that if he left it out, other media would pick up that part of the story and scoop him on his own scoop. All that too, would be obvious to Althouse, if she knew anything about journalism."

Sincerely, Ann, this habit of yours of imagining you, and you alone, can divine the true motivations of others' actions is really making you look bad. Like you think you have mind-reading powers or something.

Stick with the facts, skip the mind reading schtick and you will better defend your integrity.

Cedarford said...

Bring on the Judiciary Committee. Consider the Gableman matter a non-relevant topic for them as it was 3 years ago, Gableman didn't complain at the time, and brought it up only when questioned about present and past behavior of Bradley and Prosser.

What is relevant is Bradley aired out court dirty laundry in the case of Prosser's language in chambers before this incident - a professional no-no. Then from appearances seems to be the aggressor in the "inadvertent touching" incident to the extent she had to be physically separated from Prosser - THEN tried the (1)Enlist HR and allies to impliment the Socialist Reeducation Camp/Psychiatric Facility approach to stigmatize Prosser as the only entity at fault; (2)Failing that, went to the media.

Where she appears to have made false and serious charges against a sitting judge of the Wisc Supreme Court.

Beware in palace intrigues and coups to plan well. Should you fail, you will not likely get a 2nd chance. Consequences will come, and your putative allies will have vanished on the winds arising.

Carol_Herman said...

First of all, how do you "dispute" what people saw IN the room, happening.

NOBODY back in 2008 ... came up with "nope, we didn't have a 2008-year ... We went from 2007 to 2009. Because the bubble popped ... And, everyone lost money.

I think Bradley's in a whole stink of trouble! No matter which way she turns ... she UNDER qualified!

What's that you say? She was once a teacher in a Catholic high school? WHAT! There was a shortage of legal jobs for her to apply to? Is this what happens AFTER you pass the Bar ... And, you can't find employment in your field?

Keep the stories coming!

It's not as if a "punt" can be done when everyone gets "farklempt."

Meanwhile, if Shirley gets surly ... she's got a problem hitting her from AIRPLANE damage. She shouldn't stand on runways.

Carol_Herman said...

Penn & Teller call this MISDIRECTION!

Gableman REMEMBERED an incident where he got bopped in the head ... He gave the circumstances, too:

He was new to the court. Only there about a month. And, when he said "Shirley," UP ROSE BRADLEY ... to pass his back ... and bop him one in the head.

Now Gableman gets shot down by some "ex judge?" How'd she lose her seat in the first place?

I see, though, that the press is in full defensive mode.

So, you tell me ... whose ass are they trying to protect?

And, WHAT WILL the Judiciary Committee make of this? (Whose signature was on the bottom of the form that flew over the transom ... complaining about what happened in Bradley's chamber ... when the topic ... between six "interested" justices ... was PUBLICATION OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE law?)

Here are the places where Bradley went wrong:

Wrong to get up and STOP the conversation that was correctly directed to the Chief of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Wrong to attack David Prosser with her hands "flying."

Wrong to think her "defense" of Abrahamson even made sense.

Wrong to turn this into a drama-queen drama.

And, to top off the list ... wrong to threaten she could work around her colleagues to make the matter public.

Well, it's playing out in public now!

And, TUBBS, even for his inclusion into this attempt at "filing charges," decided not even to write up a report.

But there's always PC, huh?

PC that is gonna backfire. Since most people, by now, have far too much experience with PC's TOXIC atmospherics.

Bradley must be lighting candles ... hoping there's a "punt."

This is like KLOPPENHOPPEN all over again, except Bradley hasn't come out, yet, to make her victory speech.

Carol_Herman said...

Oh. The other unscheduled meeting would have occurred in Bradley's office. NOBODY HAS THAT ONE ON THEIR CALENDARS, EITHER!

I think Abrhamson just makes stuff up.

And, "formal" ... doesn't mean the COURT WASN'T OPENED!

It could also mean NONE OF THE JUDGES were wearing their black aprons. Or bathrobes, either.

They could'a just been there ... as they usually dress.

Did Crooks read them their horoscopes that day?

What's in the horoscopes for that day, anyway?

gutless said...

A. Too many women.

B. Broads is dingy

C. Other than their ability to marshal police coercion, why would anyone heed a word these bozo's say?

D. State of nature, here we come.

Richard Dolan said...

For lawyers who rose to the top of the judiciary in WI, this crowd has appallingly bad judgment. Doesn't even one of them have the sense to just stop, or to see that the process of belittling each other in public is making the S CT as an institution look ridiculous?

Pathetic, all around.

Carol_Herman said...

This is easier to solve than you think.

Did the justices all have a VACATION DAY on that September date?

You know, I don't think so.

I think there were justices at court. And, support staff as well.

And, I think we're watching WORD PLAY.

It's like an exam question.

You can get the wrong answer because you didn't see "FORMAL" showing up ...

And, I'll agree.

No one came in expecting a wedding. So NO ONE was in FORMAL attire.

But it's a trick question.

Or a trick answer.

I'll go with Gableman remembering it was his birthday! (And, his birthday wasn't on a Sunday, that year!)

Man, the press is trying so hard to INFLUENCE how the Judiciary Committee interprets the evidence they've gotten so far.

Yes. Shirley knows what the Judiciary knows.

And, I'm also going to guess that we're watching Abrahamson calling in some chips. (Otherwise how would Geske know she has to come along and tie the tourniquet here?

You think this stops the bleeding?

Seems to me a "language" attack can be answered better than Abrahamson saying there was a CLOSED FOR BUSINESS sign hanging on the front door of the courthouse.

How often do CLOSED FOR BUSINESS signs go up there, anyway?

Let alone this is where Gableman notices Crooks is reading the horoscopes.

Crooks isn't coming out, either ... with proclamations.

The last one we got was Kloppenhoppen's. And, she lost!

While I'm sure Governor Walker watches. And, pays attention.

And, this site gets more than just comments. It gets lots of people who come along to just read this stuff.

Now. If Shirley throws in the towel ... does her seat go to Crooks? What's in the horoscope?

Horoscopes, by the way, really know how to use language ... so you could believe, if you wanted to, that the stars overhead were chiming in.

Cedarford said...

Carole Herman -
At times you are a wealth of information on certain topics.

OK - Ann Bradley...
She was a teacher. What did she do after getting her law degree? Did she move into the legal arm of the teachers union, do something as a lawyer for a NGO...or just go from teacher to Sumpreme Court Justice with no legal experience in between?
What if any Bar Association "qualified" "unqualified" tag was used for her?
Was she ever admitted to practice in state courts?

Cedarford said...

Because, Carol, I am no defender of the dingbat - but it does appear she only briefly worked as a teacher while attending law school some 35 years ago. Then after graduating was in private practice to ten years, then circuit judge in 1985, then elected to Wisc Supreme Court in 1995, according to Wiki.

Carol_Herman said...

Cedarford, I don't know.

But you ask good questions.

Maybe, when PC became fashionable women didn't need no tags?

What's more suprising to me, though (than that run of "vacation days" back in September 2008) ... is why is it that the Chief Justice has so few friends?

The only one with less is Souter.

Wouldn't you think someone with the connections a Chief Justice gets ... that the Rollodex Wheel would be huge?

This is the best Abrahamson could do?

Do you know how many hands in Wisconsin this woman shook? I think everybody in the state, and some more than once ... got to shake her hand. While not even knowing where her hand was, beforehand.

I think airing this laundry in public has its down side.

And, I think attempting to INFLUENCE the Judiciary Committee with "word play and leaks" ... is more sub-prime than anything I've seen since our economy collapsed.

Don't professionals know better?

Carol_Herman said...

Well, Cedarford, not all judges are qualified.

The NY Post, for the past few days, has been running with posts on a woman judge (Carol Feinman ... sp?) ... Who was unhappy she was put on criminal court. So to show her displeasure ... she just gave everyone a free pass to leave. Setting no bail. Causing a stink.

And, then she said "fuck off" to a NY Post photographer. Today's story is a bit different. Today she jumped in and put the defendent behind bars, before his attorney even spoke.

So, no. I'm not impressed with resumes.

There was a time women got their votes because that's the way the system worked. And, people were generous. (Ditto for Obama. When McCain thought he'd not only have all the white votes, he'd gain Hillary's voters as well.)

I think as people watch this stuff playing out ... "winning" in the future ... won't be like it was in the past.

That's why politics always remains so entertaining.

It only gets UNfunny ... when these people are deciding your fate. Ad, then it's personal.

Do I know, though, if this stuff influences the Judiciary Committee? Nope. I've got no idea.

But I know I'm not watching basketball.

garage mahal said...

During my interview with the officers, I was uncertain as to whether Justice Bradley struck me on September 18, 2008, or September 18, 2009.

Good grief. Dems should have spent some money and recalled Gableman.

Carol_Herman said...

Well! Crooks now knows that Gableman's birthday is September 18th!

Whoopie. Bring on more horoscopes, I say!

And, also ... when Bradley says "Buddy" ... DUCK!

Carol_Herman said...

Why is Geske's evidence being believed? What if all she did was go back to the records that get saved for the IRS ... Where people who work keep an appointments calendar. Year in. Year out. 2008 is still an applicable save.

PLUS, my hairdresser uses an appointments calendar. He keeps his in pencil. Not sure how he deals with walk-ins. And, when he knows he's on vacation ... he scratches out the dates ... One day at a time. So he doesn't mistakingly "set an appointment" when he's away. (He also scratches out all Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays. He only works between Wednesday and Saturday.)

And, if I ask for an appointment change, this wasn't written in ink. He just erases one time. And, gives me another one, that's available.

Now, for Geske to "go back and check her diaries," what's with that?

Isn't this whole thing sort of like trying to prove MOOPS is a word. And, it is also the correct answer to the question that was asked?

Did Geske calle Abrhamason to tell her that she things the BUILDING WAS CLOSED! What's with that! IF the building was closed ... wouldn't this show up in personnel records? Where they list sick days. Vacation days. Etc. Even if you're a judge. Because the taxpayers get a full accounting.

I'll bet there was no CLOSED FOR BUSINESS sign on the door, however! And, I'm not even IN Wisconsin!

Just assorted media tricks.

Grandma's got a million of them. She's like a standup comedian in this department!

I wonder if the Judiciary Committee's 9 member board is impressed? Or if they're just rolling their eyebnalls?

Heck, if Geske's calendar is in pencil ... you couldn't even enter this as evidence in court! Let alone if her calendar contains erasures.

But go on. Keep playing word games.

I'm still stuck on "judicial impartiality" ... as a matter of fact. Since I think all of us can be read by the opinions we hold. While in court, we've gotta keep a straight face.

Perhaps, that's what "impartiality" means?

Yup. I also think before the media was called ... this topic was discussed by Abrahamson and Geske. Maybe, even, over lunch? Or a few drinks.

Stay composed.

Remember, we're being tested on our "impartiality."

hoop said...

Is that so? Everyone calls her "Shirley" — not "Chief"? Even the custodians?

Why not? It's not a title of nobility.

Carol_Herman said...

Let's see?

Abhramson knows what the Judiciary Committee has seen.

To deflect Bradley's hit to Gableman's head ... which got mentioned in the paperwork complaint ...

One tack is to claim "but everybody calls me Shirley." Even the janitors.

Plus, everybody in Wisconsin ... when she stops her car short to get out ... and greet strangers ... What does she say?

"Hello, my name is Shirley, and I'm your chief justice?" REALLY? She says "Shirley" a lot?

Oh, and then Geske comes out and says ... Gableman's "memory" is wrong ... because the BUILDING WAS CLOSED ... So the "incident could not have happened."

What happens, now, if all seven justices have to go back to their daily logs?

Will anybody ask them how the "Bradley chokehold" incident got recorded? Are the justices tasked with the responsibility of writing in this meeting ... into their daily diaries?

The media, it seems, is trying awfully hard to make the Judiciary Committee's complaint "disappear." And, dissolve.

And, yet? Even the "punt" hasn't come into play.

Whirling Rollodex's however. And, surprise attacks. Or what's happening to Gableman isn't a suprise to you?

Carol_Herman said...


And, maybe, this is how Abrahamson is setting up the "punt" for the Judiciary Committee?

It doesn't prove Gableman's statement false ... exactly. It just means he didn't recollect the date he remembers Bradley hit him in the back of his head ...

You know. I can remember going to Disneyland one Christmas Day. I said 1979. And, I said the park was empty. What if the year's different? Because ... when I went back again on a Christmas Day ... it was very crowded ...

Doesn't mean my name isn't Carol.

And, it doesn't mean that I haven't been to Disney's park, either.

Most of us really don't do dates well. (It could be the reason, too, so many people hated their history classes?) ...

History's a wonderful subject.

But we're not tattooed with time lines. (I'm not wrinkled.)

Writ Small said...

It appears the Bradley / Abrahamson camp is taking Gableman's accusation against Bradley extremely seriously.

All this effort to go back through records so see if exact date and time of the alleged incident could be corroborated, and then finding reporters to feed the info to, and then seeking out the former Justice Geske to say that "everybody calls her Shirley" is quite revealing about the media war being waged by the justices.

The question remains: did Bradley strike Gableman? That is not as deeply established as the fact that Bradley charged Prosser with a fist raised and a possible intention to strike. The number of witnesses puts the Bradley "rush" beyond reasonable disagreement.

Bradley striking Gableman is less certain, but very damaging to Bradley if true since it establishes a history of lost composure and resorting to violence.

What are we to believe? The scene painted by Gableman is easy to imagine. The justices are gathered informally in a room and not engaged in a meeting. Crooks is reading horoscopes. Is everyone listening with rapt attention? Unknown. In response to one of the horoscopes, Gableman makes a joke using Shirley Abrahamson's first name. Most observers have surmised this was the Airplane "and don't call me Shirley" joke, but that hasn't been established. According to Gableman, Bradley reacts defensively to Gableman's joke and whacks him across the back of the head. No one laughs. Gableman's interpretation is that the lack of reaction by the other justices means that her action was not seen "playful." It could also be that they were mildly surprised, but thought little of it. A woman striking a man after he has made a wisecrack is not so rare an event at to stick in everyone's mind.

The two people most likely to recall the event are the participants: Gableman and Bradley. Gableman's recollection is quite vivid, and strikes me as entirely believable. The only thing questionable is his evaluation of the other justice's reactions. The receiver of the whack will always recall the event most intensely. Assuming it happened, is it likely that Bradley really can't remember? Doubtful. The most likely explanation is that Bradley is lying. Assuming she isn't striking people all of the time, she probably had a moment of fear as to how Gableman would react to her impulsive action. She likely even worried about it for some time. It's almost impossible to imagine she would be totally unable to recall the event.

Lastly, what are we to make of Geske's statement: "I cannot imagine [Justice Bradley] hitting [Justice Gableman] in anger because he called Justice Abrahamson 'Shirley' — because everybody calls her Shirley'... even the custodial staff."

This statement does not actually support Bradley. Gableman wasn't struck because he was too informal with the Chief Justice and called her by her first name. In Gableman's account, Bradley struck Gableman because he disrespectfully made a joke using her name.

Bradley is using her lawyerly skills (review meeting records, summon character witnesses, etc.) to discredit Gableman's account, but it seems highly likely the events occurred just as Gableman described.

Carol_Herman said...

Yup. Definitely damage control! Definitely placed into the media by Abrahamson & Bradley ... because Gableman's recollection is that Bradley "bangs people in the backs of their heads" ... the way people really remember nuns doing. At Catholic school.

So, off the bat, there are people who believe Bradley is quite quick with her fists.


If it sells? Then the Judiciary Committee are looking for an out ... And, an exit.

TRUTH BE DAMNED. It went down the hole long ago!

So, that, too, should go into the Judiciary Committee's hopper.

"PUNT" AND LOSE. Lose reputation. Lose that you're making believe there's nothing wrong at Wisconsin's supreme court. And, while you're at it, keep PC in place. Give women roles to play way above their cognitive abilities.

Forget that this story has onlookers.

Kathy said...

From the movie Airplan - "Don't call me Shirley"

I have to probably learn how to include links in comments but you all know the famous line.......

"Don't call me Shirley"