It sounds like I’m not the only one who’s lost trust in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. A recent New York Times editorial entitled ”A Study in Judicial Dysfunction” recounts (ha!) the many ways in which Wisconsin’s court has slipped recently. The writer suggests that publicly electing, rather than appointing, our justices may be at the root of the problem:
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…
The article is referring partly to an incident I posted about in June: liberal Justice Bradley accused conservative Justice Prosser of placing her in a chokehold during an argument about Governor Walker’s controversial Budget Repair Bill, which had been stalled in the courts.
Like my post, the Times editorial has a liberal bias…and frankly, I found it hard to read due to its many references to legal proceedings that I don’t understand. But the underlying message is the same as mine: “Members of Wisconsin’s top court need to focus on restoring civility and public trust.”
After writing my post, I asked my conservative friend Scott what he thought of the “alleged choking incident” between Justices Prosser and Bradley. As usual, it was helpful to hear Scott’s perspective (this time through an email conversation).
It’s impossible for us to know whether Prosser choked Bradley, but I sense that more liberals tend to believe so, and more conservatives tend to believe not. Scott said:
I don’t believe Judge Prosser choked Judge Bradley. Having read multiple accounts it sounds as if there was a heated argument and that Judge Bradley got in his face. It sounds as if the contact between him and her was more in the vein of him attempting to separate them and the claim of being in a “chokehold” is an exaggeration and intended to be sensational.
I’m sometimes inclined to agree with Scott here, although I’m also troubled by a previous incident between Prosser and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. As Prosser later admitted, he called Abrahamson a “bitch” and said “I will destroy you” to her. As another friend of mine put it, “If I called my boss a bitch, I’d be fired.”
I wondered, don’t Prosser’s comments point to a pattern of out-of-control anger, which would indicate that he may have been capable of losing control enough to choke Bradley?
In response, Scott said:
As far as Prosser’s previous comments, I agree they were inappropriate but not criminal nor reason alone to be taken off the court. Use of language inappropriately is a far cry from physically attacking someone. I would argue too that swearing is not the only way to be inappropriate or out-of-control. Even liberal judges in the past have spoken out against Abrahamson’s leadership and position on the court. Prosser may be the obvious “smoke” in that situation but I think it’s worthwhile to understand where the “fire” is too. …I have known or read about many successful folks in life that have had tempers or used colorful language at times. That sort of language doesn’t bother me as much in general; I think that’s more of a personal call though.
Scott also said that to him, much of the media attention has seemed biased against Prosser. Despite my dislike of Prosser, I tend to agree here too.
As Scott put it:
The entire thing was leaked as ‘Prosser puts Bradley in chokehold’ with ‘allegedly’ buried somewhere in there. Even as the story has unfolded with more evidence pointing to Bradley having rushed Prosser, the storyline is still ‘Prosser accused of putting Bradley in chokehold…Prosser denies’. It creates a ‘guilty till proven innocent’ situation.
A special prosecutor was named last week to investigate the alleged choking incident. Presumably, we’ll know more after the investigation. But really, that’s beside the point—to me, what’s most important is that there’s a question at all.
The very possibility of one justice choking another is appalling. It means that there was some form of aggressive contact between them, whether it came from him or from her. And it either means that one justice choked another, or that one justice (Bradley) lied to generate support.
Either way, I’ve lost faith in this court.
