The indispensable Christian Schneider has pulled together some of the conflicting accounts of the Incident at our state Supreme Court. This suggests a few things.
1. It may well be that we are probably never going to know what really happened. As is often the case with shocking events that occur quickly, we have conflicting accounts. These are probably the result, not of deliberate falsification, but of confirmation bias. Where the opportunity to observe is limited by the rapidity and surprise of events, eye witnesses will often see what they want or expected to see. There seems to be little in the way of objective indicia of what happened, other than (perhaps) Justice Bradley's suggestion that she was not choked because the two were broken apart and her own choice not to file a police report. Apart from that, it may turn out that there is no way to distinguish one version of events from the other.
2. One unfortunate denouement is that, if the local authorities can't prosecute (and it seems highly unlikely that they can), then the matter will ultimately come back to the Court. How will that work? Do the participants and witnesses recuse themselves, placing the entire matter with Justice Crooks? Not a very appetizing prospect for him and placing the matter with a single member of the Court is probably not the best way to resolve something like this.
3. Sadly, this is not just about David Prosser. If, in fact, Justice Bradley charged Justice Prosser with her fists raised or went "nose to nose" with him, this also raises issues about judicial temperment and anger management. Of course, "a chokehold" would be a disproportionate response. I'd like to think that neither of them is guilty of actions that arise to the level of assault or disorderly conduct and that an ugly moment has been blown out of proportion. It's not what I would expect from either of them, but we'll see.
5. Nor is it just about David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley. This incident doesn't come from nowhere and it doesn't just come from the combative elections we have had since 2007. The origins extend past that and the solution will have to acknowledge this. The culture on the court needs to change. Strong differences of opinion are inevitable, but disputation ought to be kept between the white lines. When strong differences of opinion do arise, individuals ought to try and refrain from ridiculing and questioning the impartiality of their colleagues. Differences on matters of law should not be needlessly magnified into existential confrontations.
The voices of dissenters should not be ignored, but individuals should refrain from using manipulating the court's processes and customs to frustrate the will of the majority. Individuals ougnt to avoid fighting battles against their colleagues in the press. Administrative matters should not be a place for continuing ideological battles.
I don't presume to lay the blame for this at anyone's feet or with any wing of the Court nor do I intend any veiled criticism. I have no interest in arguing about who has or has not been "guilty" of contrubuting to the present state of affairs. I just hope for better. If responsibility for the problem is diffuse, then perhaps commitment to improvement can be broad.
15 comments:
Curiosity here: exactly how does the Chief Justice get selected for that position? Election by the Court? Appointment? Divine Right?
The senior justice is chief justice unless that justice declines.
If Chief Justice Abrahamson were to leave, the next senior justice is ... Bradley. Followed by Crooks. The three liberals are also the three longest serving justices.
The Wisconsin Constitution specifies that the justice with the most continuous years of seniority on the court serves as chief.
The Dane County authorities won't press charges for the simple reason that, although they'd love to further taint Prosser, they'll realize that Bradley would be shredded on cross-examination and/or have to perjure herself. As so often is the case with the Left, smearing their opponents while avoiding any real scrutiny of their allegations serves them best.
To date, unless I have missed it, there has been no denial that Justice Bradley made the "first move." She apparently has been silent on that, instead focusing her public statement on Justice Prosser's alleged action. A proper investigation by the Judicial Commission and/or Dane County Sheriff will need to address this issue above all.
Imagine the chagrin among some (but by no means all) in the MJS newswroom as the paper gets completely scooped by Christian Schneider.
It was the majority that manipulated the court's processes and customs, not the minority. In the rush to adhere to a deadline imposed by a single legislator, the court released an ill-considered opinion that dealt with precisely none of the difficult issues raised by the case. That is evident in the subsequent confusion surrounding publication. How can we blame the minority for declining to adopt a timeline so drastically different from the one the court normally operates with?
Some excellent stuff at
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/06/wi-justice-bradley-cannot-escape-her-chokehold-allegation/
The sad fact is that as long as Abrahamson is on the Court, relations among its members will remain toxic.
George, when Gableman or Zeigler talks to one of the sychophants that hardly constitutes a "scoop"!
Anon 8:48
Yes, it does. There has been no denial of what Schneider has reported. Meanwhile, the MJS has the earth-shattering news about the photo schedule.
----It was the majority that manipulated the court's processes and customs, not the minority.-----
Well, I could say that "It was Abrahamson who made an agreement on the date of the release with Prosser but was lying." Why did she change it?
One explanation for the timeline is that the Legislature was about to re-pass the law that Sumi had illegally barred from being published. In reality, this would cast in poor light the power of the Court.
Of course, anonomous bringing up the timeline pushes the spotlight away from the ringing principle that the Court decided: A county judge does not have the authority to interfere in the legislature's process of enacting and publishing law.
Also, don't forget that the core decision was unanimous.
Also, we keep referring to "the Majority" and "Minority". Is it not true that the Court was unanimous in finding Sumi to be a judicial overreacher? Does it hurt to have your decision declared "void ab initio"?
Especially when you made it a forty page decision ..... (shirley liked that work)
Your article informative fit me so add another value to me
Post a Comment