Update on Prosser’s State Supreme Kangaroo Court

[Yon_Yonson]

TPMMuckraker
Prosser Not Taking Leave From Court During Alleged 'Chokehold' Investigation
Eric Kleefeld | July 14, 2011, 10:30AM

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, who has been accused by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley of grabbing her neck in a chokehold during an argument over the court's decision to uphold Gov. Scott Walker's anti-public employee union legislation, is rejecting calls from pro-Bradley activists that he take a leave of absence while the matter is being investigated.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/prosser_not_taking_leave_from_court_during_alleged.php


Some say that the Capital Police and Dane County Sheriff's Department has asked the United Nations to investigate because it's a political hot potato crime!

[midnight]

1. What is the policy for criminal investigations of a sitting judge, and

and taking a leave of absence?

[Yon_Yonson]

2. I am not familiar with criminal investigations but this one is a long one ...

I fear it's a political hot potatoe and could take years!

[Yon_Yonson]

3. Supreme Court approval plummets .... thanks to NEOCON Prosser

WisWatch Blog
Previous Post Supreme Court approval plummets
Posted on July 21, 2011 by WisconsinWatch - 0 Comments


Justice David Prosser.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
By Bill Lueders
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

If the Wisconsin Supreme Court isn’t careful, it could end up having lower approval ratings than Congress.

An opinion poll conducted by Justice at Stake, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group based in Washington, D.C., found that Wisconsinites’ confidence in their Supreme Court has nose-dived to 33 percent, down from 52 percent just three years ago.

“Wisconsin’s citizens are losing faith and confidence in their Supreme Court,” said Bert Brandenburg, the group’s executive director.

The survey, conducted in the wake of allegations of a physical altercation between Wisconsin Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley, confirms that tensions on the court are having a negative effect on public confidence.

Eighty-four percent of respondents said they were aware of these allegations, first reported by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism and Wisconsin Public Radio. And 80 percent reported knowing about an incident in which Justice Prosser called Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a profane word and threatened to “destroy” her during an argument.

An even greater number of respondents — 88 percent — said they were “somewhat” or “very” concerned that rising spending on state Supreme Court campaigns is “compromising the fairness and impartiality of Wisconsin’s courts,” with 64 percent saying they were “very” concerned.

Despite that, only 23 percent of respondents said they preferred a system of merit selection to pick members of the court, while 59 percent were opposed. But nearly half said they would be more likely to support appointed justices if there were periodic retention elections, as are held in some other states.

The statewide opinion survey of 750 Wisconsin residents was conducted July 18-20 by 20/20 Insight Polling, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent.

Bill Lueders is president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council and is the Money and Politics Project director at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. The project, a partnership of the Center and MapLight, is supported by the Open Society Institute.

The nonprofit and nonpartisan Center (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Television, Wisconsin Public Radio and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication and other news media. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2011/07/21/supreme-court-approval-plummets/

[tinwi]

4. Plus when he calls someone a bitch he gets her job. Injustice!

There is no doubt that Wisconsin Republicans dislike progressive Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. As the longest sitting jurist on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, appointed first in 1976 and winning reelection four times since then, she has been Chief Justice since 1996. Wisconsin state statute makes the Justice with the most seniority the Chief Justice, and Abrahamson has filled that role with intelligence and levelheadedness, even in the face of overt hostility from Justice Prosser and difficult issues before the court in recent months.

Chief Justice Abrahamson's tenure as Chief Justice is going to end, if the Republicans have anything to do with it. Another hastily designed, written, and soon to be passed item circulating in the legislature is a change in the State Constitution article VII, which speaks to the position of the Chief Justice.

Previously, Article VII Section 4(2) read as follows:

The justice having been longest a continuous member of said court, or in case 2 or more such justices shall have served for the same length of time, the justice whose term first expires, shall be the chief justice. The justice so designated as chief justice may, irrevocably, decline to serve as chief justice or resign as chief justice but continue to serve as a justice of the supreme court.
In the most recent proposal, however (otherwise known as 2011 Joint Assembly Resolution 49) article VII of the Wisconsin State Constitution will be altered. It will now reads as follows:

Each time a justice is elected or reelected and takes the oath of office, the court shall elect a chief justice as its first order of business. The justice so designated as chief justice may, irrevocably, decline to serve as chief justice or resign as chief justice but continue to serve as a justice of the supreme court.
Given the recent reelection of Walker's lap dog Justice Prosser, the Wisconsin Supreme Court now has four hyper-partisan conservatives out of the seven justices total. There can be no doubt that this law will eventually usher in the election of Justice Prosser as Chief Justice. What a tragedy for the law and the State of Wisconsin.

[dragonlady]

5. Long time before this might happen

They may pass this now, before the recall elections. After that, the proposed amendment must be passed again by both Assembly and Senate in 2013 (after a general election has been held). If we gain control of either house, that won't happen. Even supposing that it does, the amendment must then be approved by a majority of the voters at a statewide election, which I doubt would happen. This qualifies as throwing something against the wall to see if it sticks.

[tinwi]

6. Good to know

Thanks for the info

[Yon_Yonson]

7. Pretty l .. e .. n .. g .. t ... h .. y police investigation

I know this is a ‘political hot potato’ investigation but six weeks to determine whether or not NEOCON Prosser had his hand on Judge Badley or not is a travesty.

If I had done this to a judge I would have been arrested, tried and guillotined by now.

[Yon_Yonson]

8. A Study in Judicial Dysfunction

NEOCON Prosser is just the gift that keeps on giving!


Editorial
A Study in Judicial Dysfunction
Published: August 19, 2011
The New York Times

Harsh state judicial campaigns financed by ever larger amounts of special interest money are eating away at public faith in judicial impartiality. There are few places where the spectacle is more shameful than Wisconsin, where over-the-top campaigning, self-interested rulings, and a complete breakdown of courthouse collegiality and ethics is destroying trust in its Supreme Court.

On Monday, a special prosecutor was named to investigate an altercation between two justices on opposite sides of the court’s bitter ideological divide. Ann Walsh Bradley, a member of the court’s liberal wing, has charged that David Prosser, a conservative, put her in a chokehold during a heated exchange shortly before the court upheld the new state law eliminating most collective-bargaining rights for public employees.

Justice Prosser has disputed Justice Bradley’s version of what occurred, and the facts remain unclear. What is certain is that Justice Prosser should have recused himself from that ruling. His vote to uphold the law occurred shortly after his re-election campaign in which he benefited from heavy anti-union independent spending.

Justice Prosser won the April election by a very small margin, prompting a recount. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that he then raised more than $270,000 for the recount, much of it in $50,000 chunks. (The contribution limits that apply under Wisconsin’s public financing system for judicial races do not extend to recounts.) Some $75,000 of the haul was used to pay fees to a law firm led by an attorney representing conservative groups in a case challenging state campaign disclosure rules, which is scheduled to be heard by the court next month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/opinion/a-study-in-judicial-dysfuntion.html?_r=1&src=tp

[midnight]

9. I love the description of the judges... One is from the liberal wing and the other is conservative

why not say a right wing radical when describing Prosser... As judges go they are all pretty conservative. I guess to follow the law makes one a member of the liberal wing... New York times forgot to mention why there was a close election- Kathy Nicholas... Prosser's former employee found more votes for him a few days after Kloppenburg announced herself to be the winner.... So months after the actual incident a special prosecutor is named....

Wisconsin has two special prosecutors looking into two different incidences surrounding judge Prosser...