When Judges Attack: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser Accused Of Choking Colleague During Argument

We have been following the intra-court war on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the recent narrow victory of conservative Justice David Prosser in his reelection. The prior controversy involved Prosser calling Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a “total bitch.” Now, fellow justice Ann Walsh Bradley has accused Prosser of putting her in a chokehold during a dispute. Prosser denies the allegation.


Other reports state that it was Bradley who “charged” Prosser, who raised his hands to defend himself and made contact with her neck.

At the rate they are going, the Wisconsin Supreme Court could be perfect for the next reality show on Fox.

Notably, in the earlier controversy, Prosser included Bradley in his complaint about being harassed and pushed to profanity: “I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted…They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing.”

Bradley told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about the incident and described the encounter:”The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

The confrontation reportedly occurred before the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month upholding Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s bill eliminating most of public employees’ collective bargaining rights. It was a 4-3 decision overruling Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi.

There is no report of an assault charge by Bradley who says that she came forward after she heard Prosser deny the allegation.

Source: USAToday

Jonathan Turley

83 thoughts on “When Judges Attack: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser Accused Of Choking Colleague During Argument

  1. After watching the incredible video provided by CEJ on Saturday’s “Gage” thread involving the work of Professor Robert Sapolsky, I can only conclude that Justice Prosser is an alpha baboon.

  2. Ok, OS. Well baboons are nicer to females and are more progressive thinkers. I do enjoy Prosser’s quip that he was goaded into his intemperate words by Abrahamson and Walsh — both women. Were I Justice Walsh’s spouse, Mark, I would feel duty bound to quickly reach out to Justice Prosser in every sense of that idiom.

  3. My thoughts exactly. There are times when I am reminded of the old phone company slogan, “Reach out and touch someone.”

  4. You need to get all of the facts. Other reports say Bradley charged Prosser with raised fists and he was merely trying to repel her attack of him. From the JSonline:

    Sources told the Journal Sentinel two very different stories Saturday about what occurred. Some confirmed Bradley’s version. According to others, Bradley charged Prosser, who raised his hands to defend himself and made contact with her neck.

    […]

    Bradley felt Prosser “was attacking the chief justice,” the source said.

    Before leaving, Prosser “put his hands around her neck in what (Bradley) described as a chokehold,” the source said.

    “He did not exert any pressure, but his hands were around her neck,” the source said.

    The source said the act “was in no way playful.”

    But another source told the Journal Sentinel that Bradley attacked Prosser.

    “She charged him with fists raised,” the source said.

    Prosser “put his hands in a defensive posture,” the source said. “He blocked her.”

    In doing so, the source said, he made contact with Bradley’s neck.

    Another source said the justices were arguing over the timing of the release of the opinion, which legislative leaders had insisted they needed by June 14 because of their work on the state budget. As the justices discussed the case, Abrahamson said she didn’t know whether the decision would come out this month, the source said.

    At that point, Prosser said he’d lost all confidence in her leadership. Bradley then came across the room “with fists up,” the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back.

  5. At the rate they are going, the Wisconsin Supreme Court could be perfect for the next reality show on Fox.

    More likely, The Jerry Springer Show with dialogue like this:

    Notably, in the earlier controversy, Prosser included Bradley in his complaint about being harassed and pushed to profanity: “I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted…They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing.”

    Bradley told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about the incident and described the encounter:”The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

  6. Justice Prosser is the same Justice who yelled at his colleague and called her a “bitch” and threatened her. He has just the correct judicial temperament to join Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court! When is Wisconsin going to wake up? Prosser and Walker are embarrasments and it is time for them to go.

  7. Gary Welsh:

    I’d tell that other source that grown men do not choke women even when “attacked” with those imposing raised fists. It’s base, cowardly, and unmanly. I believe Prosser’s clerk (obviously) about as much as I believe in the Easter Bunny. A grown man who can’t control his emotions and chokes women? In Virginia, we call them “jackasses” and give them a number on the back of their blaze orange “robes”; in Wisconsin, apparently they’re just called “Justice.”

  8. I suppose all Wisconsin judges will have to start carrying guns. What could possibly go wrong? “Deliberations” may turn into “shootout at the OK corral.”

  9. Look on the bright side. At least the children of Wisconsin can be grateful that Judge Prosser chose the law rather than a career as a playground monitor.

  10. On March 22, 2011, Jonathan Turley, another distinguished law professor blogger like Ann, posted in his blog a reflection on the dysfunction of the Wisconsin Supreme Court – “Wisconsin Supreme Court Erupts Into Name Calling and Finger Pointing”. The thesis of his post was concerned with Prosser’s outburst against the court‘s leader, Shirley Abrahamson, wherein he called her a bitch and threatened to destroy her. But what is most interesting is his inclusion of an email that Justice Patience Roggensack sent to Justice Bradley after Bradley sent out an email about this ‘bitch calling’ incident.
    Turley’s post gives an insight into something no one is talking about now that this new Bradley vs Prosser accusation has been launched. Where is the court leader Abrahamson showing leadership or any effort to solve the dysfunction? In any other workplace in America, the leaders would be required to mitigate and minimize workplace conflicts. Just because there is no power to dismiss a sitting judge (an option also available to workplaces outside of a Supreme Court) , can’t a Chief Justice make efforts to protect the workplace for everyone and work with third parties (if needed) to ameliorate tensions and behaviors that are imagined in this story of Bradley going public with an accusation that one of her court colleagues attempted to choke her?
    In absence of such leadership in the court, we have the situation we have now where it is clear that Prosser (and perhaps Bradley) need to issue restraining orders against each other in a local court to simply come to work and enjoy a modicum of safety.
    Prosser insists that Abrahamson was working against him politically as well as other court conservatives. He said that he “probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted. . . . They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing.”
    Bradley recounted the confrontation in an email: “In a fit of temper, you were screaming at the chief; calling her a ‘bitch,’ threatening her with ‘. . . I will destroy you’; and describing the means of destruction as a war against her ‘and it won’t be a ground war.’”
    Bradley’s email led another justice to criticize her for airing the issue to a wider audience. Justice Patience Roggensack wrote to Bradley, stating
    “You were trying to make David look bad in the eyes of others, as a person who uses language that we all find offensive – and I include David in that ‘we,’  . . .Do you think that copying others on your e-mail increased the collegiality of the court or decreased it?
    You are a very active participant in the dysfunctional way we carry-on. (As am I.) You often goad other justices by pushing and pushing in conference in a way that is simply rude and completely nonproductive. That is what happened when David lost his cool. He is not a man who attacks others without provocation. Until you realize that you are an active part of the provocation, not much will change. Perhaps a third party will help you realize that you are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem.”
    Despite the aphoristic clichés in this email, it is clear that Justice Roggensack was asking Bradley to seek third party help. We should listen to her and support our court.
    Now – because Chief Justice Abrahamson is not speaking out in a rather Machiavellian manner (which suggests she is playing major political games by pitting the Justices against each other) – we the public need to heed Justice Roggenstack’s request that a third party counselor or Ombudsman be assigned (from the court’s own budget – by the way – so they might have to fund fewer conferences and extracurriculars).
    We need a well functioning Supreme Court and – when the Chief Justice refuses to work for functionality and may even be contributing to purposeful dysfunction – we probably need a new Chief Justice.
    Here is the link to Turley’s March 22 post: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/22/wisconsin-supreme-court-erupts-into-name-calling-and-finger-pointing/

  11. “Were I Justice Walsh’s spouse, Mark, I would feel duty bound to quickly reach out to Justice Prosser in every sense of that idiom.”

    Mespo,

    I probably wouldn’t physically touch him, but by the time I was finished with him he would have soiled his pants in fear.

  12. What is your problem with this Justice? He was retraining that rabid pit bull. She should be pleased that he is reasonable or she would not only be behind bars, but disciplined. After all he is the Chief Judge and should not have to put up with this nonsensical woman. He was bit by the other Judge and yes, he did call her a bitch. The name seems to fit.

  13. She is evil and should be put to sleep. Not that she didn’t sleep her way to the position she is in, she must like it.

  14. Get It Here:

    Just how long have you been clerking for Justice Prosser? And where did you get that juicy bit of inside information regarding the manner in which Justice Bradley secured her position on the court?

  15. She did in fact start it, she started calling him names and throwing stuff at him. After all he is the Chief Judge and is responsible for her actions.

  16. Get It Here-

    “…she started calling him names and throwing stuff at him.”

    Again, documentation please. Were you there? There were several versions of the story, none of which allege that “he was bit by the other judge” or that “she started calling him names and throwing stuff at him”.
    Save the fiction for your Creative Writing 101 class.

  17. Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers earlier this month, according to three knowledgeable sources.

    But a different account of the incident emerged Saturday, and Prosser said the allegation “will be proven false.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quoted sources saying Prosser made contact with Bradley to defend himself after she charged toward him.

    Prosser, contacted Friday by the Center, declined comment: “I have nothing to say about it.” He repeated this statement after the particulars of the story – including the allegation that there was physical contact between him and Bradley – were described. He did not confirm or deny any part of the reconstructed account.

    But Prosser issued a statement late Saturday saying, “Once there’s a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment.”

    Bradley declined comment, telling WPR, “I have nothing to say.”

    (link)

  18. Ignoring the fact that one state Supreme Court justice coming at another “with her fists raised” sounds pretty preposterous, claiming that you’re “just blocking” and end up with your hands around someone’s neck sounds even more preposterous. “Shoving someone away” or “grabbing her wrists” or even “his forearm coming up to her neck” all sound plausible. But how does wrapping your hands around someone else’s neck prevent them from punching you? LAPD-style “from behind the back” or Jujitsu on-the-mat choke holds are both very good defenses when being attacked (albeit very dangerous).

    So here we are with “Mendota Shore” or “What happens when 7 very well educated people with power over the lives of millions stop being nice and start getting real…..” At least the “casts” of Jersey Shore or The Real World have the excuse for their behavior that the producers ply them with copious amounts of booze….

  19. A middle aged woman threatens to give him a shove so he gives her a little strangling.

    I’ve lived in Wisconsin and I have to say this is absolutely standard behaviour for a Wisconsin Republican, easily the vilest dirtbags in America.

  20. #Misandry Thread!

    Look at all you proud self claimed civil libertarians and how you go off knowing exactly nothing of what happened.

    And look at you excuse, by which I mean, encourage, violence so long as it’s toward men.

    And look at your old fashioned condescending patronization of women.

    Such Gallant White Knights, one and all!

    Shame on you, by which I mean, “f you”.

  21. What did she get? I’ve read confusing, contradictory reports, but I don’t think there has been any substantiated report of “what she got”.

    Was she injured? What did the doctors report? What did the police take as evidence?

    I have no idea what she got.

    If she charged him, and was the first to get physical, physical, and he defended himself, then perhaps she did get what she deserved, although I am at a loss for why you choose to call her a bitch. I guess it’s because you’re an asshole.

  22. I’ve read several interesting phrases used in defense of Justice Prosser on this thread:

    “She started it”: I think I last used that one when I was, oh, twelve, and my father was breaking up an argument in the back seat of the car.

    “He was provoked by her comments”: I was taught that a man doesn’t strike, much less choke, a woman for obvious reasons. The proper reaction to provocation is to leave the room until one regains one’s composure.

    “She got what she deserved”: Ah, yes. The favorite excuse of batterers and their apologists.

  23. Living and working outside Wisconsin, I’ve never read any of Justice Prosser’s opinions, which for all I know might represent enduringly great jurisprudence, but his inability to resist baiting and to formulate an intelligent, unemotional response to his colleagues’ conduct makes him come across as really stupid. Justice Bradley’s conduct in this incident makes me think further investigation is certainly warranted. And @kathteach makes a great point about the lack of leadership. Chief Justice Abrahamson doesn’t seem to have what it takes to pull the court together. I feel sad for Wisconsin and for the people who must be working very hard to do the business of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

  24. So, a never married judge with a history of support for keeping sex outside of marriage criminalized and abuse of children by a priest unpunished, demonstrates hostility toward female co-workers by making verbal threats and possibly a physical attack. Am I the only one getting that ‘repressed to the point of being another creepy Republican’ feeling?

    “In 1981, he opposed removing criminal penalties on sexual activity and cohabitation between unmarried, consulting adults,[9] though he did express a willingness to repeal the jail terms.[10] He stated that legalizing sex outside of marriage would increase divorce rates, the number of children born outside of wedlock, welfare payments, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortions. ….

    Decision not to prosecute abuse case
    In 1978, while serving as District Attorney of Outagamie County, Prosser declined to prosecute a Catholic priest accused of sexual abuse by two brothers (ages 12 and 14), who said the priest had touched their chests and unsuccessfully attempted to touch lower.[22] Prosser later explained he did not file charges because the case was weak, it involved relatively new sexual assault laws that were untested at the time, and he did not think he could win a jury trial.[23][24] He acknowledged he had discussed the case with the bishop, and said he had assumed the priest, John Patrick Feeney, would be reassigned as a result.[25] The priest was not removed from duties which allowed him contact with children, and he went on to abuse other children before being sent to prison on a 15 year sentence in 2004.[26][22] The prosecutor who ultimately handled the case in the early 2000s said that when Prosser had the case in the 1970s, he was lacking sufficient information: “We were able to gather a wealth of information that far exceeded what Prosser had,” he said, adding, “It’s not fair to second-guess him now.”[26]

    Interviewed in 2008, one of the victims commented that in the late 1970s he had been ready to take the witness stand but Prosser had told him, “it would be too embarrassing for a kid my age and said what jury would believe a kid testifying against a priest?” Prosser also said that the case would attract national attention, become sensationalized, and be even harder on the family because the younger brother of the accused priest was a featured vocalist on the popular Lawrence Welk television show.[27][26] When interviewed in 2011 the same victim said that in 1978 he and his brother had not communicated detailed information about the abuse to the authorities and that when the case came to trial in 2002, Prosser helped in the prosecution.[23][28]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Prosser,_Jr.

  25. It’s true lottakatz, you’re not the only person I’ve seen to make some sort of sotto voce gay bashing closeted gays are child abusers and hate women and unmarried men must be closeted gays connections.

    Congratulations on being yet another bigoted hate monger running on no evidence but pure supposition, cant, and intolerance while patting yourself on the back for your nice liberal insights.

    I have no idea what happened. I guess it’s ridiculous for me to take a wait and see attitude while restraining myself from bashing either party.

  26. “Chief Justice Abrahamson doesn’t seem to have what it takes to pull the court together.”

    Unless this ghoul is someone who really should not be there at all. What kind of leadership would be called upon in that circumstance?

  27. Only in the USA, corruption and greed is ripping the land of the free and home of the brave apart. LOL no wonder americans are the fools of the world. I can see Thomas Jefferson punching and biting Benjamin Franklin LMAO. Americans are a joke and the whole world has come to see it.

  28. Anon, I didn’t say he was gay. But you put an R in front of the name, give me those facts and I just go to “creepy”. I’ve been conditioned to do so by the scandals involving primarily republicans of the last 10 years regarding men, boys, young girls. I didn’t look him up to verify my feeling he was creepy, he set my creep-dar all a-tingle as I read about him. Unfair? Sure. Maybe. I wonder if he was getting laid when he voted to keep sex between unmarried people illegal? I suppose that would put him in the merely hypocritical camp and lessen the creep factor for me.

  29. Just a guess,it seems as if this may have happened before in the “mans” life.Any man who’s put in this situation IMHO would have walked away hastily in retreat or the very,and I mean the very last thought would have been to put your hands on this woman in any fashion.

  30. “you’re not the only person I’ve seen to make some sort of sotto voce gay bashing closeted gays are child abusers and hate women and unmarried men must be closeted gays connections.”

    Anon,

    You couldn’t have missed the point more. “Closeted” gays have every right to be so, except when they hypocritically use their power to punish other gays, in the interest of maintaining their own secrecy. J.E. Hoover and Roy Cohn are perfect examples and yes there is ample suspicion that this judge might also suffer homophobia while gay. Self hatred can be a bitch.

  31. @ lottakatzatz

    Don’t know where the “never-been-married” thing comes from, though I’ve heard it elsewhere as well.

    The page you linked to says: “Prosser was born in Chicago, Illinois to David T. Prosser, Sr., and his wife Elizabeth (Patterson) Prosser,[4] and was raised in Appleton, Wisconsin.”

    I assume the wife is someone that he is married to.

  32. Mike S,

    Come on dude, you try to be this neutral, wise, individual, but lottakatzatz was pure gay bashing innuendo.

    LK’s post is ad hominem innuendo and completely unrelated to whatever happened in the chambers.

  33. The lightening quick speed by which ‘educated’ progressives reach their erroneous conclusions based on one news story, and then turn quickly into a vicious mob of rabid attack dogs, never ceases to amaze.

  34. “and then turn quickly into a vicious mob of rabid attack dogs,”

    All the while making statements which show just how hypocritical they are in their views.

  35. From Christian Schneider (a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.)

    The week before the legislature was set to re-pass the collective-bargaining provision, three of the four conservative justices were ready to issue a ruling reinstating the union law as originally passed. Prosser, on the other hand, wanted to wait longer, to avoid the appearance that the court was rushing their decision through. Prosser thought he had an agreement with liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to delay release of the opinion until Tuesday of the following week.

    As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.

    According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

    At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

    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.

    “There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.

    During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling. The threat was implicit — if they didn’t vote her way, she would be forced to “take the next step” against Prosser, which they took to mean filing a restraining order against him. The other justices balked, wondering whether they even had the authority to order Prosser into any type of counseling. Some thought it would be “demeaning” to Prosser to have to go to counseling when he had done nothing wrong. In the end, Bradley realized she didn’t have enough justices on her side and no vote was taken.

    To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story. There were six justices present at the time of the incident, four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser’s version of the story. That leaves Abrahamson and Bradley as the only two remaining justices present. One source present speculated the third source may have been Bradley’s law clerk, who likely didn’t actually see the confrontation but may have head Bradley shout “I was choked.”

    Speculation is abundant as to why Bradley decided to forgo a criminal complaint against Prosser, deciding instead to go to the press ten days after the event. Some say Bradley’s complaint wouldn’t have stood up if given the scrutiny of a criminal investigation. Furthermore, others speculate that if any formal criminal proceedings had moved forward (a restraining-order filing, for instance), Prosser would be afforded evidentiary hearings, testimony, and discovery.

    Furthermore, sources unanimously believed that it was Shirley Abrahamson who has been the impetus behind the story, managing the press operation from behind the scenes. Justices had been working together regularly since the incident without any signs of rancor until Abrahamson decided to make this an issue, sources believe.

  36. That’s why I posted it. It’s not like the rabid attack dogs were going to post anything that rebuts their heretofore one-sided narrative.

  37. The FACT is that Prosser assualted her in her own office after ordering him out. THAT is criminal, and if I had done something similar in somebody’s office, I would be in jail. There is NO disagreement that he DID lay his hands on her and on her neck. He had NO right to be where he was after being told to leave. There is NO legal or moral defense.

    It is not surprising that the judges want this to be swept under the table since it makes them look bad. He needs to be sanctioned by the Bar.

  38. The FACT is that Prosser assualted her in her own office after ordering him out.

    Characterizing his actions as an assault is actually your opinion.

    Here are the FACTS as conveyed by witnesses:

    Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face.
    They were “literally nose to nose.”
    Prosser then put his hands up to push her away.
    Then, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

    Whether that amounted to assault is for a judge to decide, should it ver get that far.

    THAT is criminal, and if I had done something similar in somebody’s office, I would be in jail. He had NO right to be where he was after being told to leave. There is NO legal or moral defense.

    Four more opinions.

  39. kd,

    cite your sources…unless you can’t and you are like the rest of the tea’s….make it up as you go along….rove taught you well huh…

  40. “Come on dude, you try to be this neutral, wise, individual, but lottakatzatz was pure gay bashing innuendo.”

    Actually Anon, all I try to be is myself. Though I know in the world of the anonymous internet it is easy to portray oneself as anything, I’m just being me. I’ve never claimed neutrality or wisdom. In this particular instance you are wrong, but conveniently using the gay bashing charge as what you think is a sly tactic. It really doesn’t work.

  41. Mike,

    LK’s line of logic is this:


    33 years ago, AND long before the Catholic scandals broke out, a prosecutor declined to press charges.

    32 years ago, this conservative prosecutor now conservative politician “opposed removing criminal penalties on sexual activity and cohabitation between unmarried, consulting adults”

    He has never married.

    He is Republican.

    THEREFORE,

    He is a probably, I am not suggesting he is, I am saying what my creepdar is saying, he is a creepy repressed homosexual.

    Mike, if you don’t see that anywhere in the spectrum of nonsensical, speculative, innuendo based on gaybashing, then there is not much to discuss between us in this thread, and frankly, since I don’t consider you an idiot, it leads me to doubt your integrity and intellectual honesty in debates.

  42. Anon: “LK’s post is ad hominem innuendo and completely unrelated to whatever happened in the chambers”

    Again, I didn’t say he was gay. He sure is creepy to me though and I’ve been known to make a couple of purely ad homonym attacks. Add this one to the list. I embrace it, take full responsibility for it and inappropriate or not, I am not persuaded he is less creepy (and potentially hypocritical) if he was getting laid while voting to keep unmarried sex illegal.

    Regarding his willingness to sweep the allegations of child sexual abuse of children by a priest (in the hope that the priest would be reassigned) well no, I don’t think that it happened 30 years ago mitigates. I don’t think that any Church or public official that had an opportunity to pursue that wrong-doing and passed it up should get a pass. The priest in question was not transferred and went on to continue his pedophilia. Outrageous.

    That Prosser assisted in the priests prosecution some 30 years later after more harm was done does not cleanse him of his earlier ‘error’. Prosecutors are powerful people, he could have and should have initiated a more in-depth investigation if he felt he needed more proof. I don’t think that was the case. I think that like way too many people in the Church and public he just wanted the matter to go away.

    Prosser is a creep on a number of levels IMO and as I think it’s a character flaw I’m comfortable with an ad homonym attack. Just how creepy he is time may tell.

  43. since I don’t consider you an idiot

    Don’t be so quick to dismiss this assumption.

    I’ve read about 50 of Mike S’s posts in the last month and he hasn’t made any sense in any of them. That’s just too high a number to attribute to chance.

  44. No, you didn’t. Cause you don’t even have the guts to admit what kind of smear you are peddling.

    He’s a single, repressed, conservative, creepy, republican that hates women who would not press charges against a priest and voted down sexual liberation laws, and you just have to wonder why, but no, you did not call him gay.

    Shameful.

  45. @AY, “cite your sources”

    I did — Christian Schneider (a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.) and ANON provided a link to the article.

  46. kderosa,

    You may have stated where it came from, however….you did not cite your source….You want people to take you seriously…..well….cite your source…We feel you are a troll posting under numerous non de plumes…

    Lets say this and hear this well….If you fuck with Spindell you fuck with a whole bunch of us….You wanna rip him one…take your shots here at me or buddha…Is this clear?

  47. @AY, sounds like you haven’t replaced your tinfoil hat like I suggested.

    Is that a clear enough shot for you, sport?

    And, again, the source is Christian Schneider. he’s a guy who wrote an article just like the original USATODAY source.

    Is that clear or do I need to use smaller words?

  48. Well sir or madam whichever it is…You did not really read my other post… who do you get yours from so we won’t have clashing signals….really…is this the best you can do?

    You kock brothers are not getting what they paid for or maybe they are….you are a second class or maybe third rate troll….

    Almost every troll I have dealt with is better than you….You do realize that? Just checking oz….just checkin……

  49. But, but, but Elaine……He wants to play troll he should be the best roll he can be or he should get off… it is really a waste of his koch brothers money…. they can pay for better stuff than this….attacking everyone…. uh hmmm…that’s the way I like it…uh hu….

  50. @AY, I may have been wrong about the tinfoil hat, Now, I’m thinking you might be hearing these conspiratorial voices in your fillings. Like a radio. Try pulling those teeth and let me know if the voices stop.

  51. kd,

    Do you still hear me when I talk or have you changed to a different frequency? Just checkin…..mouth still sore after last night? Just checkin…. There are easier ways to deal with it….don’t you know?

  52. Kderosa, You find Mike S. is unable to make any sense? I suggest his writings are above your comprehension level if you can’t see the sense of them. Don’t dis him for your personal problem.

  53. There is a reference to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute in the thread above. I did a bit of research on it and found it is supposed to be a non-partisan, non-profit organization. However, they are in truth a group specifically formed to advocate conservative and generally right wing positions. They do not publish anything that could be considered progressive or liberal by any stretch of the imagination. When we look at what they DO compared to what they say they do, it give the lie to the claim they are non-partisan. Credibility = 0

  54. kd,

    Does that mean you are taking a hint and leaving? Good boy…Now, you can put your colander wrapped with aluminium foil back on….they do have some that won’t stick to your skin….really…be sure and change the micro chip settings in your teeth….if you need help…call 911 and ask them to assist….I am sure they will be happy to help….remember 911…..then again….they like to have you call and hang up on them….

  55. anon: “No, you didn’t. Cause you don’t even have the guts to admit what kind of smear you are peddling.

    He’s a single, repressed, conservative, creepy, republican that hates women who would not press charges against a priest and voted down sexual liberation laws, and you just have to wonder why, but no, you did not call him gay.”
    ————-

    I’m thinking never married (and presumably abstinent considering his desire to criminalize sex outside of marriage), repressed, conservative, republican that assaults a women and who would not press charges against a priest and voted down sexual liberation laws is enough to be creepy all on their own.

    Don’t carp on me for calling him gay when I didn’t. Unless he’s a hypocrite he’s spent his life celibate and protected the family by voting to keep criminalized, sex outside of marriage- far creepier than being sexual in any adult, consenting capacity IMO.

    But as long as we’re talking ad homenem attacks how about this one to the posters in general:

    “… Such Gallant White Knights, one and all!

    Shame on you, by which I mean, “f you”.” Anon.

    LOL, come sit by me Anon, we’ll think up some more shameful ad homenem attacks. Your brevity is admirable, maybe you could help me to learn to edit mine into a more succinct form.

  56. “In political science, nonpartisan denotes an election, event, organization or person in which there is no formally declared association with a political party affiliation.”

    Having an ideology is not the same as having a formally declared association with a political party affiliation.

  57. LK,

    ” Am I the only one getting that ‘repressed to the point of being another creepy Republican’ feeling?”

    This has one meaning, and one meaning only. I understand why you won’t own it, but it certainly owns you.

  58. And where did the original “story” come from?

    It was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story.

    Credibility = 0

  59. That article above reads like it’s Prosser who is ‘a master at deliberately goading people into’ something.

    And then to accuse his victim of exactly that, that is classic Republicanism.

    And that whole description ‘according to one witness’ and ‘another source’.

    Really. I’ll just go out on a limb and say they were both Republicans.

    Credibility: 0.

    A Republican is the lowest form of dirt in life and a Wisconsin Republican is dirt compared to them.

  60. “I’ve read about 50 of Mike S’s posts in the last month and he hasn’t made any sense in any of them. That’s just too high a number to attribute to chance.”

    Nor have I expected you to make sense of them. Some were written seriously and so their content was way above your intellectual pay grade.
    Others were direct invective aimed at you and specifically implying what I deem as your varied faults. Since self-awareness is a characteristic you don’t possess, I would hardly expect you to understand them. I was posting those comments because ridiculing someone with the mendacity and density that you possess is a guilty pleasure.

    In that sense, everyone else, while your defending me is emotionally satisfying, there is no need, because given what I’ve called this troll its
    defensiveness and its consequent lashing out is to be expected.

Comments are closed.