Tuesday, February 19, 2013

On Wisconsin

In case you thought that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is functioning better, Justice Bradley issued this order to let you know you are wrong.  Our previous coverage of the Wisconsin Supremes is here.    It is an interesting summary of events regarding Justice Bradley and Justice Prosser. 

Among the interesting parts of the order is the information that suggests that Justice Prosser was not getting with some of his fellow justices long before he choked/grabbed/touched Justice Bradley.  This resulted in Justice Bradley being contacted by a Deputy Director of State Courts who warned her of her concern that Justice Prosser might pose a physical danger.  Justice Bradley writes,
Because the danger came from the inside and not the outside, the locked entry doors that limit public access to the area of the supreme court offices were not a sufficient protection. Both the Chief Justice and I were advised to take steps for personal security, including locking ourselves inside our personal offices when working alone at nights and on weekends.

Additionally, both of us were given as emergency contacts the personal cell, work cell, squad cell, and home phone numbers of Capitol Chief of Police Tubbs as well as the regular Capitol Police office numbers. The Chief Justice was advised to notify Capitol Police when she was coming to the office after hours to work and advised to notify them and, upon request, be accompanied when she left late at night. We were told that law enforcement would patrol the area with greater frequency.
I can't speak for everyone but I would like having to lock myself in my office in order to be safe from my co-workers.  Locking oneself in the office should be limited to naps.


  1. Another interesting, dysfunctional aspect of this extremely curious order by Bradley is its timing—she issued it just six days before today's primary election in Justice Roggensack's defense of her seat. It's hard to interpre this as anything other than a nakedly partisan move.

  2. Is she really facing a serious primary challenge? Waiting until the general election would make more sense.

  3. There's only so long you can wait to grant the most obviously meritorious recusal motion in the history of the world. But I believe it is a non-partisan primary against two challengers including a Marquette law professor. Three top two advance. Presumably she will advance but it would be an embarrassment to finish second, which may be in play given the bad press this order caused.

  4. J. Roggensack and Prof. Ed Fallone (who I support) will advance to the final election in April. Roggensack finshed far ahead of Fallone, whatever that tell's us...

  5. ... or should I have written "whoM I support"; and does anyone really care?


Comments on posts older than 30 days are moderated because almost all of those comments are spam.