Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Bradley Should Resign

The way Schneider's sources put it, it was Bradley who threatened the assault.

...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.”

Oh, she wasn't?

...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.

*cough* *cough* *cough*

Clearly, Bradley is out-of-control and in need of anger management along with a long rest-period called "retirement." The attack--even the threat thereof--on an older, far smaller man, is simply one more sign that Bradley is unable to control herself.

19 comments:

Headless Blogger said...

I keep reading of the size difference between the justices. Do you have any guess at the heights & weights of the combatants?

Badger Catholic said...

So I wonder what started it?

Dad29 said...

I've met Prosser. He's about 5'4" and 120 lbs.

All the reports on Bradley indicate that she's "larger" than Prosser, which wouldn't be difficult.

J. Strupp said...

They're both f___ing nuts.

That is all.

Dad29 said...

Bradley did not like Prosser's remark that he had lost all confidence in Abrahamson as a leader.

THAT is what started it.

Kathy said...

Bradley recounted the confrontation in an email: “In a fit of temper, you were screaming at the chief; calling her a ‘bitch,’ threatening her with ‘. . . I will destroy you’; and describing the means of destruction as a war against her ‘and it won’t be a ground war.’”
Bradley’s email led another justice to criticize her for airing the issue to a wider audience. Justice Patience Roggensack wrote to Bradley, stating
“You were trying to make David look bad in the eyes of others, as a person who uses language that we all find offensive – and I include David in that ‘we,’  . . .Do you think that copying others on your e-mail increased the collegiality of the court or decreased it?
You are a very active participant in the dysfunctional way we carry-on. (As am I.) You often goad other justices by pushing and pushing in conference in a way that is simply rude and completely nonproductive. That is what happened when David lost his cool. He is not a man who attacks others without provocation. Until you realize that you are an active part of the provocation, not much will change. Perhaps a third party will help you realize that you are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem.”
Despite the aphoristic clich├ęs in this email, it is clear that Justice Roggensack was asking Bradley to seek third party help. We should listen to her and support our court.
Now – because Chief Justice Abrahamson is not speaking out in a rather Machiavellian manner (which suggests she is playing major political games by pitting the Justices against each other) – we the public need to heed Justice Roggenstack’s request that a third party counselor or Ombudsman be assigned (from the court’s own budget – by the way – so they might have to fund fewer conferences and extracurriculars).
We need a well functioning Supreme Court and – when the Chief Justice refuses to work for functionality and may even be contributing to purposeful dysfunction – we probably need a new Chief Justice.
Here is the link to Turley’s March 22 post: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/22/wisconsin-supreme-court-erupts-into-name-calling-and-finger-pointing/

John Foust said...

Sources? Atomic Pantsload didn't mention his sources.

Anonymous said...

The only person who is nuts is making this sad episode partisan, when both sides are acting like children. Really puts a tremendous amount of faith in our Supreme Court when partisanship rules the day. But leave it to Dad29 to his "sensibilities" (choke, gag, cough) get in the way.

neomom said...

Did the Soros-funded Leubner name his sources Foust?

There were 6 justices in the room, it ain't hard to figure it out.

Anonymous said...

Strangling women is OK with this crowd so long as it's political.

Dad29 said...

I'll go with Althouse here. Self-defense is just fine with me.

If Bradley were actually strangled, there would be marks, or a corpse.

Screw you and your "moralism," asshole.

jimspice said...

D29, I do not know if you have daughters. I do. Was Bradley about to attack Prosser physically? We'll never know. But from your take on this matter, can we assume that if your daughter were to become demonstrably upset, you would condone the subject of her ire to cold cock her before determining her intent absolutely?

Anonymous said...

Yes Jim, so long as it's over a political dispute dad and his ilk condone this behavior toward women. Which is surprising, based on how he gets his panties in a bunch over veiled threats to lawmakers from janitors and teachers.

Amy said...

you would condone the subject of her ire to cold cock her before determining her intent absolutely?

Cold cock?

That's not what Prosser did, and yeah, if threatened, defending yourself is perfectly within reason.

I just love all the lefties here who are suddenly SO concerned with civility...but not a one of you seems to have any qualms that Bradley went at an senior citizen with fists raised. Indeed, Prosser should have just let her pummel him, right? I mean, he's a conservative so he probably deserves it after all.

You people make me sick.

Bradley is a "woman" in the sense that she has the right DNA. But her behavior is more...uh...animal like.

This, like everything else the WI left has done, is going to backfire in their faces again.

Dad29 said...

So, Jim, when some woman beats the crap out of you, you'll simply accept it, right?

I don't think there's a bright line here--except, as Amy noted, Prosser simply separated the attacker from him.

That's what we call a normal reaction. When Bradley shows the x-rays of her broken neck, or the bruises from the "attack," we'll re-evaluate the situation.

jimspice said...

"...not a one of you seems to have any qualms that Bradley went at an senior citizen with fists raised."

A qualm? Sure. A tiny one. Such bravado has no place in a civil setting. But it hardly merits a roundhouse kick to the adams apple. We'll never know whether Bradley was fixin' to go all green beret because Prosser's idea of defending against the attack of a girl is larynx crushing.

"So, Jim, when some woman beats the crap out of you, you'll simply accept it, right?"

I know this is very difficult for you to understand, but yes. That's how I was raised. It's second nature. Cover up or run away.

Dad29 said...

ut it hardly merits a roundhouse kick to the adams apple

You're making an allegation that has no foundation whatsoever.

Care to prove it?

Anonymous said...

Does Jim offer any less proof than you had in your original post, pops? Put up or shut up indeed.

Anonymous said...

Different anony here...


"I just love all the lefties here who are suddenly SO concerned with civility..."

Um, Amy, civility has NOTHING to do with what political stripes one wears.


"but not a one of you seems to have any qualms that Bradley went at an senior citizen with fists raised."

Amy, what gets lost in translation is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is now reflective of our society reacts to political partisanship, and we expect them to properly engage in the rule of law? They ALL are an embarrassment to the black robe.


"Prosser simply separated the attacker from him."

So, Dad29, that's now the story some people are taking. I suppose one's definition of "simply separated" can vary.


"When Bradley shows the x-rays of her broken neck, or the bruises from the "attack..."

Yeah, Dad29, only then should one be concerned about, albeit, an alleged act of violence.


"You people make me sick."

Hey, Amy--> Luke 6:27-36...Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who treat you spitefully.


"Bradley is a "woman" in the sense that she has the right DNA. But her behavior is more...uh...animal like."

Wow, knee deep in generalizations, aren't we, Amy!
And to use Dad29's statement...You're making an allegation that has no foundation whatsoever. Care to prove it?