Posted on 06/28/2011 11:11:12 AM PDT by Nachum
Christian Schneider brings us the latest news from the scuffle between Wisconsin state Supreme Court justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley, which has taken on more of the characteristics of a Jerry Springer episode than a First Monday in October vibe. According to more sources, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson involved law enforcement, which got uninvolved as soon as possible in the claims and counterclaims, a path open to them since Bradley didn’t choose to file charges. Instead, Schneider reports that sources believe Bradley and Abrahamson chose to leak the story to a left-wing website in order to embarrass Prosser in retaliation:
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 — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
This could get interesting...
From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel online: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/124605454.html
“Two agencies are investigating a claim by Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley that Justice David Prosser put her in a chokehold earlier this month - an allegation Gov. Scott Walker on Monday called extremely serious.”
and...”The separate investigations are being run by the Dane County Sheriff’s Office and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which oversees the state’s judicial ethics code.”
and...”The (judicial) commission conducts investigations in secret. If it concludes a judge has violated the judicial ethics code, it issues a formal complaint. The matter is then heard by a special panel of three appeals court judges.
The judicial panel then makes a recommendation to the Supreme Court on whether it believes the judge violated the ethics code and, if so, what punishment should be imposed. The Supreme Court would then render its ruling; it has the power to reprimand judges, censure them, suspend them without pay or remove them from office.”
In other words, if Bradley and/or Abrahamson violated judicial ethics as determined by 1) the commission, and 2) the 3-judge panel, and 3) the remaining members of the supreme court, the offenders could be removed from office, apparently immediately following the ruling by the supreme court.
This could well happen given the present political environment in Wisconsin, with Republicans controlling both arms of the legislature, the supreme court and the governorship. And you know what? It should happen. Enough of liberal lying, slandering, and winning at all costs.
Abrahamson and Bradley should be impeached. Lying to the public about a supposed crime of another justice is certainly not “good behavior,” which is the standard judges are held to while on the bench.
This is one reason why the legislature should be in charge instead of judges. Most of the Wisconsin Supreme Court would have to recuse itself in this case. The liberals won’t, however.
I doubt that the witnessing judges would have to recuse themselves. The fact that they know (or at least think they know) what actually happened in that room would be a plus, not a minus, and no reason for recusing themselves.
Politically, the sitting judges will always have a stake in the matter, so that’s not a reason to recuse. Directly witnessing? I tend to doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Time to clean house. I say, let’s get on with it.
Even more interesting?
The Sheriff Abrahamson requested to run the investigation...cut a campaign commercial for her reelection.
The other Dane County official that cut a commercial for her? Mary Ann Sumi.
Its unbelievable.
I don’t know about Wisconsin, but the Federal standards require recusal “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” The Supreme Court Justices certainly have knowledge of what will be disputed evidentiary facts, disputed amongst the Justices themselves.
Yes, I wouldn’t put much stock in the sheriff’s investigation, unless he feels he’s being put out on the limb along with Bradley.
The Judicial Commission could be a different matter, however. I suppose that, too, will depend upon the political leanings of the commissioners.
Has she pressed charges or notified the police of attempted murder or choking?
Did she call the police or just leak the incident to a blg?
The Govenor, etc, needs to work on starting the process to impeach them.
The problem will cure itself
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.