Ripped into? Why rip into Roggensack? Well, that's the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's characterization. Here are the details provided:
Roggensack faces Marquette University law professor Edward Fallone in the April 2 election. The winner will secure a 10-year term on the court. Fallone has focused much of his campaign on the altercation between Bradley and Prosser, saying it is emblematic of dysfunction on the court.
On Monday at a luncheon in Milwaukee, Roggensack condemned the behavior of both Bradley and Prosser, as she has in the past, and said she should not be judged by their conduct....
Roggensack on Monday said Bradley came at Prosser with a raised fist. "I believe they (were) both out of line," she said. "I said that from the very beginning. I don't think that the conduct was appropriate by either one of them."...
Bradley also said Roggensack has mischaracterized how she acted during the incident. As she has in other recent comments, Roggensack said in Friday's debate that she got between Prosser and Bradley, separated them and "held onto Justice Bradley until she calmed down."
Bradley said Roggensack did not get between them, but rather pulled her away from Prosser when his hands were around her neck. "She didn't comfort me or calm me down," Bradley said. "What she did was instantly try to shift blame."
Said Roggensack on Monday: "I got myself between the two of them and I did hold on to her . . . because she was very upset."
Posts
24 comments:
At least Patience has some. Everybody else is a little nuts, it would seem.
Will electing someone who "has focused much of his campaign on the altercation" make the Court less dysfunctional?
I suggest lie detector tests, and failing that a trial by water like they used in the Salem Witchcraft Trials. These eminent jurists somehow seem to be a fit for those methods.
No, in Salem, they used trial by rope.
If you died, you were guilty.
Bradley seems to be making much of the use of the word "between." If I understand it correctly, Roggensack used "between" in the abstract sense of intervening, when physically, she got behind Bradley and pulled her back, which was, geographically, "behind," not "between."
Every single time, without fail and without exception, that this unfortunate event has been paraded for public consumption, re-consumption, re-re-consumption, etc., it has been because Justice Bradley has made a public statement, or has leaked some information, or Justice Abrahamson has made a statement or leaked some news, invariably shortly before a judicial election. Apart from the two Democrat Justices gaming the news business for electoral advantage the only other times that the story has arisen for the public was when insistent "reporting" by Bradley and Abrahamson led to costly and damaging public inquiries (uncovering no actionable wrongdoing).
If anybody can think of any exceptions to that description on my part, I'd like to hear about it.
Justice Bradley's term ends in 2015. That election cannot come soon enough.
Nobody has felt the warmth of another justice's neck for some time now. Can't we just put this behind us??????
None of the other eyewitnesses' accounts, INCLUDING ABRAHAMSON'S, supports Bradley's claims. Not one. She's either lying or delusional.
Bradley also gave an inflammatory interview before the February primary. I really wonder how mentally stable she is.
Her term is the next one to expire, in 2015. Never too early to start looking for someone who can unseat her.
Why is Bradley so determined to replace courtroom jurisprudence with trial by media? Is she just that lazy??
Garage: Next time you're down at the Eagle, charge at a small woman, while cursing and raising a fist. If she happens to touch you while protecting herself, tell the cops that, despite the testimony of all the witnesses, the mean woman was the instigator and put you in a "chokehold". Then please report back here how well that worked for you.
Can't we just put this behind us??????
By all means, Senor Mahal - please, lead the way . . .
Calypso
Not sure if that was supposed to be analogy of the Prosser choking incident.
The reason the review is stalled is because the conservatives are covering for Prosser and Walker appointed his people on the Judicial Commission. Everyone knows it. Just like everyone knows Act 10 was passed violating the law and was upheld by a corrupt court.
If Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon were filmed in Wisconsin, the seven versions of the flesh-to-neck episode would have doomed his movie career.
The reason the review is stalled is because the Supreme Court is the reviewing committee and they were (almost) all present and involved. There is no quorum of un-involved judges.
Everyone knows it. Just like everyone knows Act 10 was passed violating the law and was upheld by a corrupt court.
Nope. Nope. And Nope. But sweet persecuted dreams to you tonight as you sleep in your enclave of liberal group-think.
When I read this book, I couldn't help but think of Justice Bradley - profile of the woman who goes out to the parking lot & retrieves a gun and comes back to avenge some slight. I hope she is on some kind of a "watch" list:
Dying on the Job: Murder and Mayhem in the American Workplace;
Ronald D. Brown
You saw this here first.
Sooooo....it's okay to put my hands around a woman's neck during an argument?
No machine, by all means, you should let an equal-sized female co-worker with a tempestuous history berate, charge, and beat the shit out of you without raising your hands to push her away. Because ... post-feminism! Or something.
machine said...
Sooooo....it's okay to put my hands around a woman's neck during an argument?
Yes, in the same sense that it's okay for a woman to knee a guy in the balls when he is flirting with her, if the flirting includes aggravated sexual assault.
Soooooo....I hear you saying I can defend my ground and choke a woman out when even only remotely threatened?
Cool.
machine said...
Soooooo....I hear you saying I can defend my ground and choke a woman out when even only remotely threatened?
Since that bears no relation to either the threat or the response, no, you don't hear us saying that.
Soooooo....I hear you saying I can defend my ground and choke a woman out when even only remotely threatened?
She was "choked out"?
When did that happen?
If a psycho chick is charging at you, your hands will either go to shoulder/neck area or to breasts.
Neither option will end up well...but psycho chick shouldn't be raging at people like that.
She is a blight on possessors of vaginas.
Here's what no one wants to say out loud:
Bradley was born in 1950. Women during menopause have hormonal changes that in some cases lead to anger management problems. I know it's not polite to point this out, but it seems to me that it's the most obvious explanation for Bradley's behavior.
Good rule of thumb, believe the Republican and disregard anything the Dem says and never take anything at face value from the liberal media.
Just like "everyone knows" that Walker would be indicted for the SECRET ROUTERS!
It's good that Wisconsin has many non divorced voters who made it past high school in their electorate.
Being overweight does not seem to affect wise voting, as evidenced by Walker's repeated victories.
I predict much wailing and beating of drums after the libtards suffer yet another defeat at the hands of the voters. There may even be puppets involved.
Menopause? The explanation for Bradley is that she is childish and immature. She also has no clue when to just be quiet. She hates Roggensack, pure and simple.
Post a Comment