Prosser admits touching Bradley's neck; she says she suffered no harm

[midnight]

Supreme Court Justice David Prosser speaks with investigators regarding the physical altercation with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
Madison - Supreme Court Justice David Prosser acknowledged to detectives touching Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's neck - even feeling its warmth - and Bradley acknowledged getting "face to face to confront him" but suffering no physical harm from the contact.

The justices' statements in separate interviews with law enforcement were released Friday by the Dane County Sheriff's Department. The 117 pages of investigation records provide intimate details about the physical altercation on June 13 between the two justices and the increasing dysfunction on the state's highest court.

The interviews include cross-claims of justices accusing one another of shouting, slamming doors, being physically threatening and locking their doors at night because of safety concerns. At least a couple of statements appeared to be contradicted by those of other justices.

The interviews show that the three justices in the minority have had with serious personal problems with Prosser - a member of the court's four-person majority of solid conservatives - that go back at least 10 years. According to the report, Bradley and another justice met with court staff about Prosser's displays of anger in February 2010 - more than a year before the latest incident.



This is a very weird report..... http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/128463653.html

[yellerpup]

1. She shouldn't have made him choke her.

:sarcasm: All this uproar over a little simulated strangulation!

[Uben]

2. Hang that woman beater by the neck!

Prosser is a fucking coward with a hot head. He has no business being a public official. He should be thrown in jail with the criminals he has sent to jail and let justice be served....literally!

[ananda]

3. The question is...

... why isn't his ass arrested?

[leftyohiolib]

9. because all the arresters are republican

[HelenWheels]

11. Because the 4 conservative judges lied

Unfortunately there were 4 conservatives and only 2 liberal judges that witnessed the attack. The conservatives said Bradley raised her fists to Prosser. Gableman, a real dick who had his seat on the bench bought for him by the Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce organization, said she is taller than Prosser and towered over Prosser like Lyndon Johnson did to those he wanted to intimidate. Problem with that is Bradley is 5'3" and Prosser 5'9". Hard to tower over someone 6" taller than you are.

[tcaudilllg]

15. Well if justice is a lie in Wisconsin...

why not go vigilante?

Oh that's right: we've got a president who persecutes the good guys, and lets the bad guys do as they please.

[rasputinkhlyst]

4. Well can a citizen's arrest be made on this scum bag?

and will he be pardoned by the governor he so adores?

[HereSince1628]

5. He also claims he didn't squeeze, and that his reactions were 'instinctive'

Instinctive grabbing of someone's neck? I suppose that for someone inclined to physical abuse such impulsivity and lack of control could seem like it was even God-given. But then a distorted perspective is often a hallmark of pathology.

I'm not privy to any knowledge from behind the scenes. But I suspect that when the back story is finally disclosed, the lack of a prosecution had much to do with salvaging the public's opinion of the current Court. This Court borders on dysfunction and it's decisions are seen as partisan.

[saras]

18. That sounds like a reasonable "instinct" for a trained Republican

Humans don't have any significant instincts.

[elocs]

6. My question is how Justice Bradley can work with Prosser?

How do you sit and hear cases with a man who assaulted you?

[Scuba]

7. Sadly, lots of women have to continue working with men who have assaulted them. n/t

[bemildred]

8. I guess judicial temperament is not needed in Wisconsin. nt

[undeterred]

13. Or maybe Wisconsin is redefining it as "having the reflex to choke your co-worker"

[bemildred]

14. I think in Wisconsin it means "Republican", for the moment anyway. nt

[xchrom]

10. recommend

[Fearless]

12. Oohh! It's ok because she didn't get hurt!

:sarcasm:

[wizstars]

16. Hey, Prosser! Have you stopped beating your associate justices??

[Bozita]

17. It was time to use the "Monopoly" card...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SCfwBkF65oY/SQNM4rxrijI/AAAAAAAAF8g/IIQp9liG57s/s400/Dem+Monopoly+Get+Out+of+Jail+Free+Card.jpg

[midnight]

19. Here is some info. about the decision being crammed through the courts when Prosser

found his hand around another judges neck...


There was some internal disagreement among the four people who wanted to . Some of the people thought that the order should say that the bill that was the subject of this order had been published. My view was, 'No, it has not been published.' And in that, the three dissenters agreed with me. — Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser
Which is interesting because it was my understanding that the near-unanimity of informed commentary — including, we now learn, Justice Prosser's — agreed that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 had not been published, in the sense required by both the State constitution and the State statutes. There is no discussion of this question of publication in either the court's unsigned order or Justice Prosser's concurring opinion.

There is this, from Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's dissent:
¶111 The order and concurrence fail to examine carefully the arguments of the Secretary of State about the respective roles of the Secretary of State and the Legislative Reference Bureau in the publication of legislative acts, the printing of notice in the official state newspaper, and the effective date of a statute. See Wis. Stat. §§ 14.38(10), 35.095(3)(b), 991.11.
Indeed, between the two cases that the Huebsch majority claimed were supposed to have controlled Judge Sumi's deliberations — as opposed to their being controlled by, you know, the plain text of the Open Meetings Law — one, Goodland v. Zimmerman, was about an unpublished bill, and the other, La Follette v. Stitt, was about a published bill. Nevertheless, wrote Justice Prosser, "In my view, this case is governed by Stitt."* On the other hand, the court's unsigned order relied primarily on Goodland.http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/08/huebsch-v-dane-county-it-could-have.html

[midnight]

20. A special prosecutor announced Thursday that no charges would be filed.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/prosser_to_investigators_contact_with_bradleys_nec.php