Just when everyone had thought the record had stopped playing, the ridiculous Wisconsin collective-bargaining controversy just keeps going on and on, “Hey Jude” style.
On Saturday, a report appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in which three anonymous sources claimed Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser put his hands on the neck of female colleague Ann Walsh Bradley during an argument in her chambers earlier this month. According to the original report, details about the alleged assault “remain sketchy,” which apparently wasn’t enough to keep the newspaper from running the story on its blog.
The story was shocking, in that most people that know Prosser to be a mild mannered, avuncular figure. (Upon hearing the story, a friend texted me to suggest he issue a press release with the title “Hero Supreme Court Justice Saves Colleague With Emergency Heimlich Maneuver.”) Prosser and Bradley have a history between them, as it is believed Bradley attempted to tank Prosser’s recent reelection campaign by leaking details of a private incident in which Prosser called colleague Shirley Abrahamson a “bitch.” (People question the appropriateness of that charge, not the veracity.)
The original report was written by Bill Lueders, my former editor at Madison’s Isthmus weekly newspaper, who now writes for the Center for Investigative Journalism. Yet when the Journal-Sentinel sent their own reporters out to follow up on Lueders’s sensational report, they found something completely different. Another source told the Journal Sentinel that it was in fact Bradley who charged at Prosser, with her fists up, causing him to put up his hands to defend himself. From the story:
At that point, Prosser said he’d lost all confidence in her leadership. Bradley then came across the room “with fists up,” the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back.
Bradley then said she had been choked, according to the source. Another justice — the source wouldn’t say who — responded, “You were not choked.”
Suddenly, the headline on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel webpage went from “Prosser grabbed fellow court justice’s neck during argument” to “Justices’ feud gets physical.” Quite a difference.
Of course, the original story made no mention that there might be any disagreement as to how this all went down. In subsequent statements, Lueders has said that he didn’t withhold any information that may have exonerated Prosser, but Lueders himself rewrote his own story after the new information came to light. (Ann Althouse has been doing yeoman’s work on the whole affair and has more details.)
As you may recall, it was Prosser’s reelection that allowed Governor Walker’s collective-bargaining bill to stand, as Prosser was the deciding vote when the new law came before the court. Prosser’s election became a referendum on Walker’s public-sector-union plan, and he barely won reelection after 7,500 votes were found to have been unreported to the media by the Waukesha County clerk.
Perhaps, in order to circumvent future violent incidents, there should be a push to go back to the original Wisconsin constitution and decide cases based on which justices can eat the most bratwurst.
— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
Nothing really unusual. Our national legislature has already been replaced by the menopausal hormone surges of lesbian leninists wearing black robes. About time for Wisconsin to receive its share of Progressive Jurisprudence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYikes! Sounds like wpa38 is in a dry spell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know whether those ladies are lesbians, but Leninists sounds pretty fair. Lunatics isn't too far off either.
Prosser shouldn't allow himself to be in the same room with them anymore, without witnesses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe may find that he's not in the same room with ladies for a while, though he may find he's sharing a bunk with a gent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds like Weinergate all over again. The initial lefty spin is giving way to a more accurate picture that does not flatter Democrats.
Anyone have the betting line on when Bradley will announce she is taking a leave of absence and entering an anger management program?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt reminds me of the lefty spin on the Giffords shooting. They immediately painted Lounghner as a right winger. Later, we learned he's a 9/11 "truther."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"…it is believed Bradley attempted to tank Prosser’s recent reelection campaign by leaking details of a private incident in which Prosser called colleague Shirley Abrahamson a [censored word]."
Apparently Bradley wants that "censored word" title all to herself
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat, did Lueders have a competitor who was about to scoop him, so he had to go with the story before the facts came in?
How many times are these guys going to get caught with their pants down? Sooner or later the have to say to themselves, "Wait, I know Prosser, I know Bradley, which one do I think got unhinged? There must be more to this story, I better check it out further before I run with it."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt appears David Prosser is the left's newest boogey man. These people have no shame.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, in all the commenting on this, I do fail to see one thing: What about the part where a man does not ever put his hands around a woman's neck?
Not even a "men should not lay their hands on women" type of pabulum, before launching into why she's a bad person and he's sterling?
I'm old fashioned but I would never physically assault a woman, unless under really serious circumstances.
And this does not seem like one of them, I mean is she so dangerous as to be fended off by a choke hold?
A 5 foot something woman of 60ish or whatever?
That's the part that bothers me.
Excuse it all you want, but it's not right.
And given his previous comments, it seems fishy.
Think of it, if this was a male liberal judge and he did that to a female conservative judge, there would be calls for blood.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou would prefer he had swung and clocked her? Or, do you believe that he should have simply let her beat on him?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid you read the article? It says he put up his hands because she rushed him. Also, an associate told her
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"you were not choked".
"I'm old fashioned but I would never physically assault a woman, unless under really serious circumstances."
Funny how that standard never seemed to be applied to William Jefferson Clinton.
At any rate, since when is a woman legally allowed to assault a man? Did Lorena Bobbitt become President when no one was looking?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, since we are all equal these days, if a woman wishes to rush up and try to hit a guy I'm not so sure the old adage applies anymore. LOL!
Growing up we were kind of taught be prepared if you got physical. Looks like the lady judge never learned that lesson. If you want to be treated like a lady, you need to act the part. As said in the Quiet Man, and I paraphrase - have the decency to not hit him until he is your husband so that he can hit you back!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChivalry does not extend to allowing yourself to be struck, no matter who the attacker might be.
We you even reading the same article? The one that says he put his hands up, WHEN SHE RUSHED HIM, and that a witness declared, immediately, "You were not choked"?
What choke hold? I mean, you clearly are just making that part up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat if Prosser didn't "lay his hands" on her, but instinctively raised his hands in a defensive posture against someone charging with raised fists? What if Prosser is 68 and 5'2" and Bradley is 61 and considerably taller?
Sorry, but I just can't imagine this man putting a choke hold on a fellow jurist much less a woman (and we women have been known to take advantage of the "never hit a girl" rule, you know). I hope I'm right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...and he barely won reelection ..."
I think he still won by more than 7,000 votes, didn't he? Though it might be a small percentage, it's hardly "barely won".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure that Prosser will get all the public relations and legal help that the Koch brothers can buy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure that Prosser will get all the public relations and legal help that the Koch brothers can buy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou mean like all the public relations and legal help provided to WI unions by Soros and the WH?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse