Ann Althouse, who lives in Wisconsin and has blogged extensively about recent events there, provides as concise of an explanation as you are likely to read anywhere about the recent controversy involving Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley. Moreover, it sounds credible.
The background is straightforward enough. The Justices had met in the chambers of Chief Justice Abrahamson, where a heated argument ensued over the prospect of ruling on the recently passed Wisconsin public unions law. At one point, Bradley accosted Prosser, who reacted by placing his hands on the throat of Bradley. Prosser maintains it was an automatic response to Bradley attacking him and that he merely meant to push her back away from him. Bradley, however, insists that Prosser actually attempted to choke her.
Here's the most relevant part of the account from Althouse-
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... During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.
Ah, but pay close attention to the following-
“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.
So in other words, the bitch was lying. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Frankly, I didn't need Althouse to tell me that. Of course, seeing as how it is an established fact that Bradley first accosted Prosser, I also wouldn't give a shit if it was true. But that's a whole other issue.
This is a woman who is obviously in the tank for the public employees unions, and for the Democrats to whom she acts as a rubber stamp in her rulings, all the time claiming, in this cunt licking piece at Global Thinking, that she is an independent judge who puts a premium on courage when making her judicial decisions. And she wants to make sure you all know that.
In her own words-
“In my professional life, it means making rulings, regardless of the political pitfall. It means embracing our constitution, and giving meaning to the first amendment, freedom of speech; and the fourth amendment, freedom from unlawful search and seizures — even in tough times. It means standing up for unpopular causes — the victims, the poor, and the powerless.
“Being a person of courage is by no means easy. It means taking a stand. It can be a formula for being unpopular and misunderstood. You may be subjected to criticism and ridicule.”
So there you have it. To a liberal, activist Democrat appointed judge, judicial courage is to be defined as standing up for the mob and the special interest unions over the rights of the taxpayers she holds in such scorn, who frankly have every right to subject her to the criticism and the ridicule she holds beneath her dignity.
The next time this bitch physically accosts somebody to the extent they feel the need to choke the bitch, I offer the following instructional diagram for their perusal-