The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has more
on the bizarre events at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The investigations could go on for rather a long time, given the strangeness of the events. Here's the way it boils down, I think.
- If Justice Ann Bradley's story is true, David Prosser has to resign.
- If Justice Ann Bradley's story is not true, Ann Bradley has to resign.
- Either way, Scott Walker gets to pick a jurist for the Supreme Court.
One thing is certain -- the last thing the Democrats in Wisconsin want is to have Scott Walker replace any member of the Supreme Court, especially if it turns out to be Bradley, who with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson forms the heart of the liberal bloc on the court. If Prosser goes, Walker still wins, since he'd be likely to pick a jurist who is younger, more reliably conservative and less, ahem, excitable.
The only way this turns out well for the Democrats is if a lengthy investigation comes out as "inconclusive." That's your likely endgame.
6 comments:
If Prosser is smart, he gets his side of the story to a police affidavit and forces Bradley's hand.
At least if indeed the case is as it would seem from the coverage.
If Prosser is smart, he gets his side of the story to a police affidavit and forces Bradley's hand.
Won't happen BB, because the events happened in Madison and the (a) Capitol police, (b) Madison PD and (c) Dane County law enforcement are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party. It would be like an East German dissident to swear out an affidavit for the Stasi.
He went to the Judicial Board instead. There's a reason for that.
Which still means he's filed an affidavit, no?
And if indeed it is true that the police in Dane County are "owned" by the Democrats, mebbe it's time for the Legislature to step in and make some hyperpartisan heads roll.
1. It was NOT a "single-source" account.
2. A man does not "block" attacks from a woman by clamping their hands around the woman's neck. They simply put up their arms or grab their wrists. Please stop ignoring the disparity of natural physical strength, and instinct.
3. Prosser has a *history* of spouting woman-hating crap, which he ADMITS, and adds that he gets provoked. (See "victim-blaming")
4. Oh let's just coldly stand back and speculate over whether Democrats or Republicans '"win" in a case of physical assault, while of course ignoring the unsavory history of the police, the justice system, the media, and pretty much anybody, actually, of discounting the stories of
women who have been physically assaulted by men.
Good to see you, Amanda. A few things:
1) True, it's now come out that the Lueders account is less than single-sourced, as he admitted on a Madison television station that he was relying on hearsay.
2) And you know this how?
3) Prosser's "history" is in large measure a concoction of narrative. I'm sure he said something nasty to Bradley, but there were 6 Supreme Court justices in the room and only one supports Bradley's version of events.
4) No one disputes history. What we dispute is whether or not this incident is part of that history. And the evidence doesn't support the narrative, especially now that Lueders has admitted he used hearsay evidence in his reporting.
Amanda,
Here's another question -- what do you make of the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, especially given reports in the sainted New York Times about the reliability of his accuser? How does that fit into the narrative?
Post a Comment