Hell Hath No Fury
By Mitch Berg
Bill C in the comment section yesterday pointed us to h Ann Althouse’s coda on the Prosser/Bradley flap:
Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign.
Note that almost none of the people who were crying for Prosser’s resignation over the weekend are saying any such thing.
If that happens, then the tactic of leaking the original version of the story to the press will have backfired horrifically for Democrats, as Governor Scott Walker will name the Justice to replace Bradley. If both Justices erred and must resign, that will be 2 appointments for Walker, both of whom, I would imagine, will be stronger, younger, and more conservative than Prosser, and, with Bradley gone, the liberal faction on the court will be reduced to 2, against a conservative majority of 5.
Kinda makes you want to apportion blame evenly, doesn’t it?
No – I have a hunch that’s not what’s going to happen. More on that below.
AND: Remember, the legislature has the power to impeach, so it is Bradley who is at the greater risk as the story, suppressed for 11 days, comes out. The legislature could play neutral and impeach both Prosser and Bradley, but that would give 2 appointments to Scott Walker.
I can think of a lot of women who, when physically assaulted by a co-worker, might not call the police immediately. Alcoholic women from trailer parks, women with Alzheimers and women on parole who get attacked by other parolees while buying crack, mostly.
Not a lawyer and judge.
Eleven days? It just doesn’t pass the stink test.
ALSO: People may assume that the man is larger than the woman, but — from what I have heard — Bradley is significantly larger than Prosser. Bradley is also 7 years younger than Prosser, who is 68.
My hunch – Bradley did it, and has spent the couple of weeks trying to make it go away.
My prediction – the Wisconsin Dems will play the gender card for all its worth. They’ll try to set up a (utterly false) equivalence with Prosser’s alleged verbal confrontations with the Chief Justice.
Those are no-brainer predictions, of course.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:24 am
No-brainer and falls under Kermit’s Axiom: If it wasn’t (weren’t?) for double standards, liberal Democrats would have no standards.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:36 am
The problem here is that more Supremes than Bradley and Prosser are party to this thing. Apparently 6 of the 7 justices were in the room when the incident happened. If you are one of the other justices, do you want to be involved in this thing, especially if you’re compelled to offer your version of events under oath?
Althouse is correct on the potential endgame if the matter goes beyond any investigation. That’s why my no-brainer prediction is that they’ll do a long investigation, declare in the end that the evidence is “inconclusive” and let the matter drop. The Dems can’t risk losing Bradley’s seat on the Court, because Shirley Abrahamason is pushing 80.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Let’s not make any hasty judgments, folks… we haven’t heard DogGone’s sage wisdom on this subject (and seven others which are in no way related).
June 28th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Now there are more details.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
ALSO: People may assume that the man is larger than the woman, but — from what I have heard — Bradley is significantly larger than Prosser. Bradley is also 7 years younger than Prosser, who is 68.
Per the comments in Althouse, she may also have about six or seven inches in height and thirty pounds on him as well. Also it’s unclear from the accounts whether he was standing or sitting when she came towards him.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
A leopard doesn’t change its spots! If Bradley pulled crap like this once, I guarantee you she’s done so before! Since there is no such thing as an “investigative journalist” anymore, maybe we can get Hannah Giles to poke around Bradley’s neighborhood to find out how many of them have noticed her erratic behavior.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Mitch-
I think you are making a big assumption about this story being leaked to try to get rid of Prosser. Forcing his resignation or impeachment would require some sort of proof. But firing up liberal bloggers and union activists in Wisconsin requires no such standard.
The DFL here in Minnesota has spent three months on the ‘all cuts budget’ meme, despite it being logically false. Getting mileage out of a ‘he said she said’ confrontation in the court house would be a piece of cake by comparison.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Christian Schneider has more details at NRO:
As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.
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. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.
At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”
On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”
During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.
“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.
During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling. The threat was implicit — if they didn’t vote her way, she would be forced to “take the next step” against Prosser, which they took to mean filing a restraining order against him. 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.
More details here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270679/more-details-emerge-wisconsin-s-chokegate-christian-schneider#more
June 28th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Like I said, nobody looks good in this, but Abrahamson looks worse and worse all the time.
But the larger person charging a smaller one with fists raised isn’t exactly a non-threatening friendly behavior no matter the genders involved. If the NRO report is correct Bradley is in trouble.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Money quote from the Schneider piece:
““There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley.”
If she really said this then it’s at best a tacit admission that there was no choking involved. At worst, it may be an indication that she was trying to provoke him into a physical confrontation and was upset that another justice pulled her away from Prosser.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Sheesh, is this the best you can do for research, quoting other blogs? Even then thorleywinston provided more than you; not more accurate or better quality, but quantity anyway.
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/06/justice-prossers-conduct-wrong-right-or.html
Prosser appears to have had a long history of anger issues and questionable conduct.
One of the things I found most interesting was that in March 2011, one of the co-chairs of his campaign, a former Governor of WI, left his campaign and gave his support to Kloppenburg, very 11th hour.
His explanation for the switch: “I have followed with increasing dismay and now alarm the campaign of Justice David Prosser, whom I endorsed at the outset of his campaign and in whose campaign I serve as the honorary co-chairman, because of “a disturbing distemper and lack of civility”Lucey said in the statement. “I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser’s candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice — as for any judge — even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility.”
I very much doubt Bradley is in trouble. It is never acceptable for either gender to strike each other, regardless of relative size; on that we agree.
As to Abrahamson – she doesn’t look ‘worse and worse all the time’ at all, if you read more than the narrow right wing media and blogosphere. In she was awarded 2009 Best Justice, by the non-partisan Wisconsin Law Journal, and has received similar bi-partisan commendations, including a few from Prosser himself.
Prosser’s conduct has been a problem for a long time, and it appears so far that it has also been getting worse, not better. That doesn’t automatically convict him of assault and battery, but it isn’t a good sign that he is innocent either.
There are currently two investigations in progress – the sheriff’s office at the request of the capital police, and the judicial commission. To know more will require waiting for their results.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Sorry – that cut and paste didn’t read properly; something went wrong with it. This is what it should say:
“Lucey released a statement to the media Thursday evening saying the campaign has revealed what he called “a disturbing distemper and lack of civility” in Prosser, though he did not cite specifics. “I have followed with increasing dismay and now alarm the campaign of Justice David Prosser, whom I endorsed at the outset of his campaign and in whose campaign I serve as the honorary co-chairman,” Lucey said in the statement. “I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser’s candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice — as for any judge — even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility.”
At the same time, Lucey said he has continued to be impressed by Kloppenburg, saying she has shown the proper judicial temperament.”
I don’t think I missed anything when checking out either Bradley or Abrahamson; neither of them have anything like these allegations against them.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“Chokegate”, Peter? Really? That’s so damn lame it’s not even worth a good laugh.
As far as “a disturbing distemper and lack of civility” is concerned, I think we all know which side of the political spectrum is most adept at these particular vices.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Chihuahua? Who is Lucey and what does this have to do with the subject?
June 28th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Loren;
As usual, Dog Breath take a dump with some unrelated crap! If I were reading this, my first thought would be, “Another disgruntled jackass with an axe to grind,” then move on.
I’l bet Dog was wetting herself searching for something to defame a conservative, which is her twisted, morally bankrupt MO!
June 28th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
So you have a vague source throwing Prosser under the bus DG, come on you can do better, and if you can’t that only proves this whole thing was a crock.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
For those who are confused by Dog’s post — Lucey is Patrick Lucey, who was governor of Wisconsin in the 1970s. He is a Democrat and served as (a) Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to Mexico and (b) as the running mate to John Anderson in 1980. He’s a contemporary of Wendell Anderson and about as relevant.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Do not the words “he did not cite specifics,” strike you as relevant?!?!?!
June 28th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Dave Thul wrote:
“Mitch-
I think you are making a big assumption about this story being leaked to try to get rid of Prosser. Forcing his resignation or impeachment would require some sort of proof. But firing up liberal bloggers and union activists in Wisconsin requires no such standard.”
Exactly. I don’t doubt that this is the reason that this “story” was broken by a socialist news outlet on the same day that the law went into effect. This is standard practice for the Left. When a court does something you agree with, as in Roe V Wade or the CA supreme court on the same-sex marriage referendum, then any attack on the courts or a judge is an attack on our sacred constitutional traditions. When a court does something the Left does not like, as in upholding the Wisc. collective bargaining law or in Bush V Gore, then the gloves are off and any attack, using any standard of proof is undertaken with gusto.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“He is a Democrat and served as (a) Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to Mexico and (b) as the running mate to John Anderson in 1980. He’s a contemporary of Wendell Anderson and about as relevant.”
Well, then please allow me to change my statement from “Another disgruntled jackass with an axe to grind” to “A washed up, left wing political hack!”
Thank you!
June 28th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Former Governor Lucey was Prosser’s Campaign Chairman; that gives him significance.
He’d been a strong supporter of Prosser before witnessing incidents where Prosser’s anger and self-control issues, which he personally witnessed, concerned him enough to quit – and give his support to the opposition.
There are other instances of supporters who feel Prosser has changed from his earlier time as a Justice, people who have previously supported him and now express concern about his anger, and some also about his ethics.
The NRO piece doesn’t appear to be nearly as well-researched as the local media sources, and appears more heavily biased. It gets some of the details wrong.
The best info I’ve found so far do not portray the incident as one where Prosser had an accidental, momentary contact with Bradley’s throat. He appears to have kept his hands there for longer. Only Prosser and Bradley can know how hard he squeezed or did not.
While there are descriptions of Bradley as having her hands balled up in fists, the accounts vary do not support her having positioned them in any sort of threatening manner, or having struck or otherwise touched Prosser, nor did any of her statements threaten Prosser.
Lucey is 92 years old; he was a professor at Marquette and then Harvard on government and public policy for many years after leaving public service. He also served in the WI legislature back in 1949, was state Lieutenant Governor before becoming Governor. I don’t think it is accurate to describe the man as ‘a washed up hack’; he seems to be very well respected by both sides of the political aisle in WI throughout his career to present. He came out of retirement to work for Prosser, which had been a plus for the Justice.
Multi-source; do your own damn homework. I did far more of that than any of you appear to have done, including right wing sources.
I’m guessing you all just went with the fact-challenged right wing propaganda feeds.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Btw – I included video of Prosser losing his temper, multiple instances.
You can see him in action yourself; it includes what he does with his fists when he gets angry.
I didn’t see anything like that on the NRO site….. but I have it on Penigma. I think that quite adequately supports ‘he did not cite specifics’.
Lucey didn’t – but I provide them (plural – more than one).
June 28th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
“Former Governor Lucey was Prosser’s Campaign Chairman; that gives him significance. ”
Uh . . . we have these things called “elections” in this country, Dog Gone. Prosser was elected, his opponent lost, though it certainly took her long enough to admit it. That was the proper time to bring up any allegations of a candidate having a temperament that was not suitable for the post they were running for.
Exactly what are you trying to do, DG? If Prosser goes, Walker appoints his successor. The only political sense it makes to assassinate Prosser by innuendo is to delegitimize, in the eyes of the Left, a law legally passed by the representatives of the people of Wisconsin.
Why do you think your videos deserve more respect than O’Keefe’s videos?
Is a little consistency too much to ask for?
June 28th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
That’s exactly what Dog doesn’t want and has not wanted here for years.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Kermit @ 2:25 — I’m baffled. Did you think I was trying to slam Posser or support Abrahamson with my link to Althouse’s more recent post, in which she quotes the Schneider article?
June 28th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
DG,
Sheesh, is this the best you can do for research, quoting other blogs?
And that, DG, is why nobody outside of the leftyblog echo chamber will ever take you or your writing especially seriously.
I quoted Ann Althouse – who is highly respected on both sides (at least by the sentient left), who is herself quoting the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Prosser appears to have had a long history of anger issues and questionable conduct.
Um, that’s fascinating.
And utterly irrelevant. Not only because, as Terry rightly said, the time for that discussion was during the election, but because it’s of no relevance whatsoever to “chokegate”.
You say:
“I very much doubt Bradley is in trouble.
Um, why?
Because you’ve provided absolutely no reason, one way or the other, to think anything about Bradley. Merely carried out a tu quoque ad hominem against Prosser’s alleged temper.
it’s of no relevance. Nothing in that comment, in fact, was – other than the names involved. Given your history of thread-jacking, I should be thankful.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Multi-source; do your own damn homework. I did far more of that than any of you appear to have done, including right wing sources.
You seem to conflate “perceived volume” with “germanity” and “logic”. In this case, a bunch of third-party irrelevancies that, mirabile dictu, just happen to be exactly in line with the Media Matters-driven smear campaign against Prosser.
Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
But by all means keep working on it. With enough practice, anything can happen.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Not sure, Peter. Were you promoting something as laughable as “Chokegate’, or merely “a disturbing distemper and lack of civility”? Doggie has distemper. She should have had her shot.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Multi-source; do your own damn homework. I did far more of that than any of you appear to have done, including right wing sources.
Does the phrase “There’s no there there” strike a chord? I can’t wait until Media Matters gets stripped of it’s tax-exempt status.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
And red my blog.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Kermit, I’ll make it as simple as I can. I linked to an Althouse post which I thought offered some new, important information — i.e. the Schneider article.
The most you could deduce from that is that I was promoting Althouse’s take on the Schneider article. Yes, she used the silly “Chokegate” name in her title, but that’s not enough to suggest that I endorse that term.
How on earth do you connect me to the phrase that Dog Gone copied and pasted?
Or is it that I wrote something, so it had to be wrong?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Dog, I grew up in Wisconsin and my family is still back there. I follow the politics there very closely. A few things your fact checking didn’t seem to register:
1) Lucey was Shirley Abrahamson’s patron. He appointed her to the Supreme Court in 1976 and he’d do anything to help her, as her career is the only lasting legacy of Lucey’s tenure. Abrahamson wanted Prosser out, so it’s hardly surprising that Lucey would do her a favor by kneecapping Prosser. If Lucey was complaining about Prosser’s temperament, he was doing it at Abrahamson’s request.
2) Lucey isn’t a hack, but he’s a party loyalist, with the one exception of joining Anderson on the 1980 ticket, which was more a way for Lucey to get back at Carter than about any moderation in Lucey’s views. He’s a loyal Democrat and while he might have had a collegial relationship with Prosser at one point, things changed when the protests started.
3) As you note, Lucey is 92 years old. He was not actively campaigning for Prosser and his role in the campaign was ceremonial. Lucey has not been a political factor in Wisconsin for over 30 years now. Scott Walker is the 7th man to serve as governor in Wisconsin since Lucey’s tenure ended in 1977. Comparing him to Wendell Anderson is probably unfair to Anderson, actually.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
One other thing to remember, Dog. Up until the protests began, Prosser was essentially running a ceremonial campaign. Prosser only started to face attacks because of the protests. If there had been a great desire to remove Prosser from the bench prior to the budget repair bill, the Democrats would have run an experienced circuit court judge for the position. Prosser got 55% of the votes and Kloppenburg received 25% of the votes in the primary. If things had gone differently in Madison, no one outside of Wisconsin would ever had heard of Joanne Kloppenburg.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Well Peter, I was merely asking a question, not making an accusation. Did you misunderstand the words Were you promoting something as laughable as “Chokegate’, or are you just acting reflexively?
June 28th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Dog Gone should realize that we on the right are far more used to tolerating dissent in a civil manner than those on the Left. I am solidly against gay marriage, I am against open immigration, and I am against the idea that economic efficiency is goal in and of itself. I don’t particularly respect the GOP. Yet without a doubt my home is on the Right.
In thold days — before 1968 — I could have found my home in the Democrat Party. Not any more.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Kermit, no.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
DOG:
Speaking of violence, do you still condemn the Jews for defending themselves against genocidal Islamists?
“That assault you describe was armed Israelis in international waters – armed with guns against people who had at most sticks and knives.
How many people – including one American – died from the aid flotilla, versus Israel? Look at the numbers. Look at the numbers of people in Gaza who died under Israeli attacks.”
http://moderateleft.com/?p=6386
June 29th, 2011 at 4:08 am
This is apiece with the endless string of groundless ethics charges against Sarah Palin or Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” memo. It’s a typical Democrat ploy. They can’t argue the merits so they make false accusations hoping to deceive and distract the voters. Democrats must lie to the voters about their plans and goals, else the voters soundly will reject them.
Think of that for a moment: one political party’s entire life depends on lies.
If you think of yourself as the party of goodness and light, trying to help people who are too ignorant or self-centered to understand your brilliance, so you find yourself resorting to lies in order to achieve your goal of helping those same people . . . that must be not only galling at first, but wearing after a while.
No wonder Progressives initiate violence so often.
.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:30 am
On the other hand, it may be a sign of modernizing in the Supreme Court.
Instead of starting every judicial term with the Clerk solemnly intoning “God Save This Honorable Court,” they might change it to:
LET’S GET READY TO RUUUMMMMBBLLLLLEEEEE!!!!
June 29th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Terry says:
“Uh . . . we have these things called “elections” in this country, Dog Gone. Prosser was elected, his opponent lost, though it certainly took her long enough to admit it. That was the proper time to bring up any allegations of a candidate having a temperament that was not suitable for the post they were running for.”
Lucey DID bring up the issue of Prosser’s temperament prior to the election; he did it towards the end of the campaign.
If you had checked what I provided as research, there were a number of newspapers that also had been commenting on it.
Prosser has a long and increasingly serious anger control issue. None of the other justices have had that problem. I show it on my web site, in video clips, as part of documenting Prosser’s anger behavior. Beyond the general problem of his anger control, he seems to have a particular problem with treating women Justices as equals.
Nor does he have, as an example, the distinguished legal reputation of someone like Chief Justice Abrahamson.
What I wrote about this was:”Just because Justice Prosser has had anger issues, which appear to be documented by conflicts outside the Supreme Court as well as within it, does not prove that Justice Prosser battered Justice Bradley.”
There are two investigtions at present; those will determine what occurred.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:51 am
Mr. D wrote:
“Abrahamson wanted Prosser out, so it’s hardly surprising that Lucey would do her a favor by kneecapping Prosser. If Lucey was complaining about Prosser’s temperament, he was doing it at Abrahamson’s request.”
If Abrahamson wanted Prosser out, why would Lucey agree to be his co-chair in the first place?
If you follow WI politics so closely, how can you be so unaware that Prosser has had PRIOR anger issues both while on the bench of the Supreme Court and while in the state Legislature, incidents which appear to be increasing in intensity?
None of the other parties in this accusation have similar documented anger control problems.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Multi-source; do your own damn homework. I did far more of that than any of you appear to have done, including right wing sources.
Mitch wrote:
“You seem to conflate “perceived volume” with “germanity” and “logic”. In this case, a bunch of third-party irrelevancies that, mirabile dictu, just happen to be exactly in line with the Media Matters-driven smear campaign against Prosser.
Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
But by all means keep working on it. With enough practice, anything can happen.”
I looked at more than two dozen sources, and researched all of the parties involve equally. As often as possible I used local media, mostly television and print, as primary sources, supplemented by on-line info such as the code of judicial conduct. I gave greater weight to the more recent material, including updates, which appeared to be correcting earlier errors of factual detail, and I cross-referenced those for the greatest possible accuracy and consistency for information such as how many justices were actually present, and which ones they were.
I then read a cross-section (politically) of blogs as well, although not as many as other sources. Included in that was Althouse’s piece which you referenced. I’m well aware of how she is regarded, thank you, but that does not in itself guarantee her accuracy. I also quoted the Milwaukee Sentinel, btw, in what I wrote, referring to the same aticle directly.
That Prosser has increasingly demonstrated issues with anger and self-control is a legitimate context to the accusation. It gives it credence to the accusation. Other Justices don’t swear at each other and make threats as he does.
I also looked at Prosser’s repeated justification for his conduct that he has been goaded, which seems to me to be blaming others for his behavior. He excuses himself repeatedly with that justification, not just this in this instance. He also denies wrongdoing until confronted with it beyond any point of continuing to deny it, so his denials here are questionable.
There was one other Justice who viewed Prosser as having been ‘provoked’ into losing his temper, but that doesn’t appear to be confirmed by anyone else. Other than that one Justice, it appears to me that Prosser is not comfortable with women who are assertive or who aggressively argue for their point of view in the same way that he would view the same behavior from men.
Just given the physical description of the altercation, it would seem logical that if Prosser DID feel threatened, he could have simply left Bradley’s chambers, as he had been requested to do, repeatedly.
Further, if he was seriously concerned about Justice Bradley striking him, it would be far more logical if she had raised her fists, for him to grasp her in defense by either her upper arms or her forearms, not her throat. That is not a defensive gesture.
I had you in mind Mitch, personally, and the way I regard the ‘Mitchketeers’ (a term I use affectionately, not in snark) when I also wrote this:
“While I commend many of my conservative friends and colleagues for their vehement opposition to any form of violence against women, there is what appears to me to be a significant atmosphere of threats and intimidation against women on the bench in Wisconsin, that is also partisan in nature.”
June 29th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Now regarding anger issues, my take is that anger generally results from a provocation, and according to the Journal-Sentinel article, Ms. Abrahamson is delivering it up in droves–“little” things like “refusing to release a clear decision in a case having a significant impact on the state’s financial future.”
So who is at fault here? Do we fault our Lord for clearing the Temple, claiming He had anger issues, or do we fault the moneychangers who committed usury in God’s House? A problem is anger out of proportion to the provocation, not anger in and of itself.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:28 am
The most compelling argument that Prosser may very well have done what he is accused of is what he does with his hands when he is clearly extremely angry shown in the video clips.
Those clips show multiple instances of Prosser clearly out of control, in rages, using his hands to threaten people in situations where someone was disagreeing with him over issues which included partisan differences.
Prosser refused repeated requests to leave Bradley’s office. None of the accounts indicate that Bradley was actually reaching to strike or grab for Prosser in any way, only that her fists were balled up in anger and frustration at Prosser for refusing to leave. Bradley did not swear or make verbal threats of harm or violence against Prosser (verbal assault) while confronting him. Nor did Chief Justice Abrahamson.
Neither you nor Ann Althouse refute that. Your defense appears to be entirely partisan in origin.
As to civility, I have always been civil. The same is certainly NOT true of all conservatives – or all liberals either.
Or would you like me to document that as well?
June 29th, 2011 at 8:55 am
Or would you like me to document that as well?
By all means, go ahead and “document” anything and everything your tiny little deems necessary. Most of us will just file it into the increasingly huge pile of “tl;dr” crap that oozes from that overly abused keyboard of yours.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:55 am
*tiny little mind
June 29th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Chihuahua,
Actually the narrative has now changed, you aren’t keeping up. Prosser wasn’t in Bradley’s office, but the hallway outside her office.
And some of the accounts indicate that Bradley advanced on Prosser in an angry state with clenched fists, so your “None of the accounts indicate that Bradley was actually reaching to strike or grab for Prosser in any way, only that her fists were balled up in anger and frustration at Prosser for refusing to leave.” is not quite accurate either. “According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” ” (see Althous or NRO) Moving into close proximity of someone with fists clenched in anger (while making nonsensical demands to leave an office which you are not standing in) is generally viewed as an aggressive act.
Accounts seem to indicate that Bradley advanced on Prosser. Which makes her the aggressor. Or at the very least a “willing participant” in the altercation.
June 29th, 2011 at 9:41 am
If you follow WI politics so closely, how can you be so unaware that Prosser has had PRIOR anger issues both while on the bench of the Supreme Court and while in the state Legislature, incidents which appear to be increasing in intensity?
You document none of these, of course. Just so you know, I actually met Prosser back in 1978 (during his first campaign for the legislature; my father knew him pretty well), and Lucey in 1987 (when he was serving as a trustee of Beloit College, my alma mater). I’m highly confident that I understand Wisconsin politics better than you do, Mrs. Teasdale.
And Loren is correct, the narrative has changed, which is hardly surprising, because the narrative you’re peddling doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
June 29th, 2011 at 10:14 am
As to Abrahamson – she doesn’t look ‘worse and worse all the time’ at all,
Two teachers have repeated conflicts in a school. Things get worse and worse and the principal does nothing until a “hostile work environment” is created and a suit ensues. Who is sued and who is responsible for the creation of that environment?
Or are you saying that one of the principle jobs of a Chief Justice is not managing the court?
June 29th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Prosser refused repeated requests to leave Bradley’s office.
So Bradley and Abrahamson have claimed (attributing to them the leaked statements). According to other reports that your FACT CHECK seems to have missed, at least three other witnesses have placed the encounter outside the office.
There’s a similar number who claim that Bradley is the one who committed what is considered legally assault.
And finally, does it matter if Prosser has a temper? When you go “nose-to-nose” with raised fist with someone you know to have a temper are you initiating conflict or not? I’m really curious DG, would you like someone like Mitch come yelling into your face with raised fist and would you feel threatened and try to remove him from your face? I don’t care if he’s normally mild-mannered, but someone larger than you yelling, physically demonstrative, and that close isn’t a good situation.